ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Tourism

Henry Smith: What estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.

Sajid Javid: The Office for National Statistics estimates that the direct contribution of the tourism sector to the economy in 2013 was £56 billion. Taking account of indirect benefits, Deloitte estimates that in the same year the sector was worth £127 billion gross value added to the UK economy, supporting 3.1 million jobs.

Henry Smith: I welcome that response. As my right hon. Friend will know, Crawley contains Gatwick airport, which is a major gateway to the UK. What more can the tourism industry do to ensure that people coming to the UK travel on to other destinations and take advantage of the many benefits and tourist attractions in Crawley and West Sussex?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be aware that Gatwick is already a major local economic driver, generating some 23,000 jobs at the airport alone, and he is right to ask what more it could do to attract visitors to Crawley and Sussex. He will be aware of Visit Sussex, and I encourage the town to work more closely with that and with Tourism South East, to see what more it can do to show its local attractions.

Tracey Crouch: The Secretary of State will be aware that across Kent tourism accounts for the direct employment of nearly 65,000 people. Tourism VAT rates across the EU are much lower than in the UK, and if VAT on accommodation was reduced to 5% that would boost jobs and bring a further £1 million into Kent. What conversations has he had with the Treasury about the benefits of a future cut to VAT, as that would bring jobs and growth into Kent and the UK as a whole?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has raised that issue before and I know she feels passionately about it. She will know that tax is an issue for the Treasury, and we have ongoing discussions with the Treasury on a number of issues. I am sure she will join me in welcoming the fact that in 2013, because of the support the Government have provided to the sector, we saw record levels of tourism, and it looks as if 2014 will be another record year.

Roger Williams: Tourism is particularly important in rural areas. What can we do to encourage VisitBritain to highlight the excellent hotels, holiday accommodation and visitor attractions in rural Wales, and indeed the entire west of England, to make it a tourist destination for people coming from abroad?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to say that tourism is vital for local economies, and I have a big ambition to get more people out of the cities and visiting our fantastic countryside. He will be pleased to know that one week from today we will launch the Countryside is Great campaign in New York, with the fantastic Katherine Jenkins performing. That will help make clearer to international tourists exactly what our fantastic countryside has to offer, including in Wales.

Creative Industries

Graham Allen: What steps he is taking to encourage the development of creative industries to help regenerate outer city estates.

Sajid Javid: Economic estimates for the creative industries published this week have shown that the sector plays a leading role in our long-term economic plan. The figures estimated that in 2013 there were 84,000 jobs in the creative industries in the east midlands, and the Government continue to work closely with the sector so that it can produce further jobs and growth across Britain.

Graham Allen: Welcome as those figures are, does the Secretary of State agree that there is sometimes an imbalance with the creative industries necessarily being located in the inner cities, city centres and business districts for tourism, heritage and media, and that very few go to the outer city estates and working-class areas of the sort I represent? I chair the Rebalancing Nottingham North charity. Will he find some time in his busy diary to meet me and discuss how we can balance the expansion of creative industries so that everyone can benefit?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that important point, and I commend his excellent work in taking forward the Rebalancing the Outer Estates Foundation. He will know that the Arts Council supports many regions around the country and helps with that rebalancing effort, but there is always more we can do, and I or the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy would be happy to meet him to take that issue forward.

John Robertson: The BBC has an excellent building in Glasgow, as does STV, and a lot of money has been put in by these large
	companies. One thing that has been missed is localism within the creative industries, and although a certain amount of action is supposed to take place outside the M25 corridor, we are not seeing that north of the border.

Sajid Javid: I referred earlier to a report published this week, which shows strong growth in the creative industries throughout the UK in every region, including Scotland. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take a look at it. If he has any fresh ideas that he thinks we should look at, I would be happy to speak to him.

VAT (Digital Services)

Kerry McCarthy: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on musicians and other creative professionals of EU proposals to change the way VAT is charged on digital services.

Edward Vaizey: The changes relate to the announcement in the 2013 Budget and came into effect on 1 January 2015. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs established an external working group to consider their effect on small and medium-sized businesses. The Treasury and HMRC are actively engaging with it.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response and for agreeing to reinstate the question after his officials tried to transfer it to the Treasury. That was very kind of him. As he will know, musicians are very concerned that they will end up having to fill out quarterly VAT returns for very small sources of income. If they sell their music through iTunes or Bandcamp, they will perhaps do the administration for them, but it is a real issue if they have to handle it themselves. I urge the Minister to take part in those discussions with the Treasury and ensure that the voices of musicians and other people in the creative sector are heard.

Edward Vaizey: I would never dodge a question from the hon. Lady, particularly as she represents the constituency of Bristol East, where I stood famously in the 1997 election and turned a 5,000 Labour majority into a 17,000 Labour majority. The changes will protect and increase revenue. The hon. Lady is a great champion for the music industry. I take on board her point and I will certainly engage with HMRC.

Promotion of Hatred (Television Programmes)

Siobhain McDonagh: If he will discuss with Ofcom steps to ensure that television programmes which contain promotion of hatred against Ahmadi Muslims cannot be received in the UK.

Edward Vaizey: Ofcom has strict rules, set out in the broadcasting code, forbidding the broadcast of harmful extremist material and hate speech. This includes the promotion of hatred against the Ahmadi Muslim community, which is well represented in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

Siobhain McDonagh: On 22 December, Geo TV broadcast a programme that incited hatred against the Ahmadi Muslim community. Five days later, an Ahmadi Muslim was murdered in Gujranwala, Pakistan. We know that Ofcom has an enormous job to do, given the large number of satellite TV channels, in many languages and dialects, that come into the UK. What help can the Government give Ofcom to monitor hatred that might lead to the radicalisation of some of our young people in the UK?

Edward Vaizey: Ofcom does important work in this area. It is worth recording that it fined Takbeer TV £25,000 for abusing Ahmadis. Ofcom has also required it to broadcast a summary of that decision. Ofcom is investigating complaints that have been raised recently. It will assess them as quickly as possible and come to a conclusion.

Harriet Harman: After the horrific murders in France last week, it has never been more important unequivocally to assert our commitment to the right of free speech and a free press, and the right to be provocative and even offensive, including the right to lampoon religion. After last week, however, the reality is that a shadow hangs over broadcasters, bloggers, journalists and satirists. They and their staff should not have to look over their shoulder, fearing violence. Will the Minister tell the House what the Secretary of State has done to reassure them not only of the Government’s in-principle support, but that every step is being taken to give them the security they need to exercise their rights in our democratic society? Has the Secretary of State spoken directly with the media about their concerns? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary?

Edward Vaizey: The Secretary of State made very clear his views in an article in The Times on Saturday. I commend that article, and his very clear commitment to free speech and freedom of expression, to hon. Members. The security of the media and all citizens is a vital issue, one that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary take extremely seriously. As Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we will play our part in working with them to ensure the appropriate levels of security for anyone who champions freedom of expression.

Local Television Services (North-east Wales)

Ian Lucas: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits of the introduction of a local television service in north-east Wales.

Edward Vaizey: Local TV will increase the range and availability of local news, information and other local programming. Ofcom awarded the local TV licence for Mold, which covers parts of north-east Wales, in January 2014. The successful bidder for the licence, Bay TV, has two years from the licence award to begin broadcasting.

Ian Lucas: The licence granted does not cover Wrexham, which is the largest town in north-east Wales. MPs from all parties in north Wales
	support the extension of the current licence to cover the largest population centre, which all parties believe would be in the best interest of improving the very limited broadcasting that exists in north Wales—we have no BBC local radio, for example. Will the Minister please meet north Wales MPs in order to take this forward?

Edward Vaizey: I know that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other MPs met Ofcom at the end of last year. There are some technical difficulties involved in broadcasting to Wrexham. Unfortunately, because of those technical difficulties to do with spectrum, local TV cannot broadcast in all areas. I know that Ofcom will write to the hon. Gentleman. I would, of course, be delighted to have a meeting with him and any other interested MPs to discuss the issue further.

Rugby World Cup

Jim Cunningham: If he will discuss with the organisers of the Rugby World Cup the use of non-playing facilities at the Ricoh arena for events connected to that tournament.

Helen Grant: The selection of host city venues and team training camps is a matter for England 2015, the tournament organisers.

Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister aware of the wonderful facilities at the Ricoh arena in Coventry, particularly for sport, but there are also restaurants and tourist facilities there? I would like to say that Ministers have been very helpful to Coventry in respect of the Charterhouse project for tourists.

Helen Grant: I do know of the wonderful facilities in Coventry, and I am confident that there will be opportunities for Coventry to benefit from England hosting the rugby world cup. That could include participation in the domestic trophy tour in the Festival of Rugby. I recommend that local authority venues in cities, including the Ricoh arena in Coventry, continue to discuss opportunities with England Rugby 2015.

Football Supporter Ownership and Engagement Group

Tom Greatrex: What progress has been made by the Government’s Expert Working Group on Football Supporter Ownership and Engagement Group.

Helen Grant: The group had its first meeting on 25 November and shortly after issued a call for evidence. I expect to publish the initial findings from this group in the coming months and a full report later this year.

Tom Greatrex: I am pleased that although it has taken since 2011, when one of the Minister’s predecessors promised it would happen, the working group is now finally up and running. She will be aware of the concern of many football fans—I declare an interest as a Fulham fan—that their club grounds are potentially worth more for purposes other than football and there is uncertainty about clubs maintaining their links with their communities.
	Fortunately for Fulham, despite misguided property speculators and ill-advised owners in the past, we have managed to survive at Craven Cottage, which is an iconic football ground and part of the English football fabric. Is the Minister aware of the concerns of fans, and does she think it is a good idea to have statutory consultation, ensuring that any change of use of football grounds is done with the fans in mind to protect grounds from asset stripping?

Helen Grant: There were a few issues in that question. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This expert group is being set up so that fans can air their views. It will give them profile and a good platform. I am sure that issues such as this will be raised and reported to me in due course. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his point in more detail.

John Leech: This year marks the 10th anniversary of the controversial Glazer family takeover at Manchester United—against the wishes of the vast majority of United fans. This saddled the club with vast debts to pay for the takeover. Does the Minister agree that football clubs and their supporters should be better protected from these predatory takeovers that can threaten the long-term viability of many of our football clubs?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and responsible club ownership is important to all of us. The football authorities take it very seriously, and I am pleased that the owners and directors test has been strengthened. Following two debates here late last year, I asked the football authorities if there was a way of tightening this important test.

Kevin Brennan: Is not the importance of listening to fans and of supporter engagement shown by the welcome decision taken by the Cardiff City board to put Cardiff City back in blue? I was delighted to be there on Saturday to see the club beat Fulham 1-0—in their traditional blue colours.

Helen Grant: Blue is one of my favourite colours. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Fans are the lifeblood of football and it is important that they are engaged with and listened to.

Arts Investment

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to increase investment in film, theatre and the arts in the UK.

Sajid Javid: The Government have an excellent record of creating new opportunities for investing in the arts and creative industries. Following the success of UK film tax credits, which have generated billions in investment since 2010, we have introduced new tax reliefs for TV, video games, animation and theatres, and continue to invest in skills and innovation.

Barry Sheerman: Huddersfield Town, one of the most famous football clubs, plays in blue as well.
	There are some very good things going on in the arts, such as the international film awards. But the community arts scene, certainly in places such as Yorkshire, is really feeling the pinch. A lot of our talent starts off in little community groups and grows but there is an absolute desert at the grassroots of the arts for lack of funding.

Sajid Javid: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for what has been achieved in the arts under this Government. He makes a good point. If I remember correctly, he raised recently the issue of social investment tax relief, which can help community arts activities as well as other charitable activities. He had called for an increase in the cap and he will know that the Chancellor announced just that in the last autumn statement. He can see from that that the Government are listening and doing what we can to help community arts.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Government on their investment through tax credits and the wonderful boost that that has given to the UK film industry. Will he join me in celebrating the investment made by small cinemas such as the Ritz in Thirsk and the Palace in Malton to bring digital cinema to a wider rural community and giving people a great night out?

Sajid Javid: I support everyone having a great night out and if the Government can help with that, it is a good thing. But seriously Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend is right to point out the support that the Government have provided to the film industry. Just in the last year, the Government have helped support over 300 films made in the UK with expenditure of almost £3 billion across the country, which is a good thing for us all.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Secretary of State agree that one way to increase investment in the creative industries is through retransmission fees? Where are we with the consultation on those fees?

Sajid Javid: We will be launching a consultation within weeks on this issue. I have spoken about it before, the last time being at the Royal Television Society. I agree that it is an important issue that has not been looked at for years. It is about time we did.

Mobile Telephone Coverage

Philip Hollobone: What progress he has made on improving mobile telephone coverage in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) England.

Sajid Javid: Last month we reached a landmark agreement with mobile operators to deliver improvements across the UK by 2017, including in England. This locks in £5 billion of investment and each operator will cover at least 90% of the UK landmass.

Philip Hollobone: Not spots are particularly frustrating for those who live in isolated villages where mobile phone coverage is often essential, but also for those who are on the move by road or by train. What is the Secretary of State doing to tackle the problem of not spots?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of trains and communications, which is why the Government have made a commitment to improve connectivity on trains. He may be aware that Network Rail is in the middle of a competition to work out the best solution to the problem. On Government support, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a few months back £53 million of funding for the programme, with money that Network Rail was supposed to return to the Government. I will also ask my right hon. Friend to give my hon. Friend an update.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State has taken some bold steps to push mobile telephone companies to increase coverage in not spots. However, even in areas such as mine in Shoreditch, with mobile coverage, wi-fi and broadband, there is a real issue about planning permission for buildings that are tall enough to allow other technologies to flourish. Will he update the House on conversations he is having or will be having with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about changing planning permission to allow these other technologies to flourish?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has raised an important issue. We are having ongoing discussions, and we have ongoing plans to improve the situation. As the hon. Lady may know, the deal that was announced last month with mobile phone operators included an agreement by the Government to give them access, at market prices, to Government-owned property on which we have the freehold, and I think that that is a positive step.

Nigel Evans: It seems rather bizarre that commercial airlines flying over the Ribble valley are now able to use mobile phones, while, below them, rural parts of my constituency have no coverage whatsoever. Will the Secretary of State encourage mobile phone operators to use the new technologies that are available, to ensure that rural England has full coverage?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right, but, as he will know, although the deal announced last month is voluntary, it is binding on each of the operators because of licence changes that are to be made. It will massively increase coverage throughout the United Kingdom, halving the number of what are known as partial not spots, and reducing the number of total not spots by two thirds. There will be improved coverage of data as well as voice.

Chris Bryant: Members on both sides of the House have rightly pointed out that not spots are not only infuriating for individuals but bad for businesses, especially small businesses, in many cities as well as rural areas. Unfortunately, the Government left it until the dying moments of this Parliament before taking action. What the Secretary of State described a moment ago as a landmark agreement is falling apart. Will he confirm that mobile network operators have told him, as they have told us, that he has reneged on the promises that he made about the electronic communications code—the amendments to the Infrastructure Bill that he has tabled at the last minute are wholly inadequate—and that he cannot tell the taxpayer whether this will cost us all £1 billion in lost
	revenues to Ofcom? Is not the truth of the matter that we now need a Labour Government to do the job properly?

Sajid Javid: Some things never change. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. He has a reputation for opposing everything that comes before him, even if it is blindingly obvious that it will be great for everyone in the country. Given that he is new in his present role, having been kicked out of his old one, and that it is the start of a new year, we thought that he might have turned over a new leaf, but no such luck. I am sure, however, that he is intelligent enough to look at the deal carefully, and when he does so, he will see that it is a good result for everyone in the United Kingdom—including his constituents, who currently have some of the worst mobile phone coverage in the country.

Arts and Culture (Funding)

Diana Johnson: What assessment he has made of the effect of government spending on culture and the arts outside London.

Edward Vaizey: Normal service is now resuming.
	The Government strongly support the fair distribution of funding for culture and arts throughout the country to increase opportunities for access and participation. We recently announced new cultural investment in the north of England. The Arts Council intends to build on its current trend of 60% grant in aid and 70% lottery investment outside London. That will, of course, include Hull, which will become the UK city of culture in 2017.

Diana Johnson: Despite the continuing imbalance of arts funding in favour of London, I am pleased that Rosie Millard and Martin Green are to lead our preparations for 2017. They are doing an excellent job. Will the Minister tell me, however, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the disproportionate cuts that Hull has suffered under his regime—I believe that a further £24 million was cut in December—and about the impact that they will have on Hull’s ability to lead our national celebrations in 2017?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Lady’s question raises the much wider issue of the work that the Government are having to do to clean up the chaos and mess left by the Labour Government and balance the books. It is highly hypocritical—that is, it is very odd to hear her mention this matter, given that Labour Members trooped through the Lobbies with us to secure the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget in the next three years.
	We cannot put up with the chaos that is emanating from the Labour Benches. Last week they were tweeting that they supported cuts in the arts, boasting about them, while at the same time pretending that they opposed them.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that Harlow is the cultural oasis of the east of England? We have the Gibberd gallery, the beautiful Parndon mill, the Harlow museum and much more
	besides, and we are also a sculpture town. Will he consider what he can do to support our beautiful town and culture and arts in Harlow?

Edward Vaizey: The first thing we need to do is designate my hon. Friend as a national treasure, and the second thing I am going to do is send the Secretary of State to Harlow. He will be visiting shortly.

Mr Speaker: Well, the junior Minister clearly has a keen sense of his own power.

Outdoor Recreation

David Rutley: What steps he is taking to support outdoor recreation.

Helen Grant: Via Sport England, we invest nearly £70 million each year in outdoor sporting activities, and through VisitEngland and VisitBritain we will be promoting visits to the great outdoors through our “Countryside is Great” campaign.

David Rutley: Given the importance of tackling the increasing challenge of physical inactivity and given the potential of tourism in rural communities, does my hon. Friend agree that this is a good time to consider establishing a national strategy for outdoor recreation to sit alongside the Government’s successful sports strategy, to get more people active outdoors?

Helen Grant: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that outdoor recreation is fantastic for our country, and we very much appreciate the work he does in promoting the benefits. I have had several meetings across Government on this issue, and I am engaging with the sector more widely. I will present more on this vision soon, and will be happy to update him in due course.

Derek Twigg: What are the Government doing to encourage more women and girls to get involved in outdoor recreation and sport? There is a particular problem of girls leaving school and never doing sport again.

Helen Grant: We are doing a lot to get girls participating in sport and outdoor activity—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has heard of the £10 million Sport England “This Girl Can” campaign, which was launched this week. It is a cutting-edge consumer campaign aiming to normalise sport and outdoor activity, and I think it will do very well in increasing participation, and also deal with the health and emotional well-being issues that we have got to get to grips with.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the Minister join me in sending our support and condolences to Alex Thomson from Gosport, the yachtsman who was dramatically demasted last night while leading the Barcelona world race? Fortunately, none of the crew were hurt, but in a place such as Gosport, where we have a world-class marine scene, he is one of our true champions.

Helen Grant: I am very sorry to hear about that, and my thoughts and prayers go to him and his family and friends.

Clive Efford: I join the Minister in welcoming the Sport England “This Girl Can” campaign designed to encourage more women and girls to get active, but in order to have a lasting impact we must inspire the next generation, so she must feel shamed by the Youth Sport Trust survey figures published yesterday showing a fall in the time spent by children doing sport in schools since 2010. It is too late to put things right at the fag-end of this Parliament, but is it not clear that this Government squandered a golden legacy in sport and failed to inspire the next generation?

Helen Grant: I cannot believe what I am hearing. We have more young people participating in sport now than we did when we bid for the Olympics in 2005, we invest £450 million in the school sport premium, which ignites an interest in sport from an early age, we invest £150 million in school sports, which brings competition back into schools, and we have nearly 17,000 schools participating, so I really do not recognise the very gloomy picture the shadow Minister is desperately trying to paint.

Nuisance Calls

Sheila Gilmore: What recent steps he has taken to tackle nuisance calls.

Edward Vaizey: In spring last year we published the first ever nuisance calls action plan, which includes both legislative and other proposals to tackle the problem, so we are taking measures. We have, for example, recently consulted on lowering—or, indeed, removing—the legal threshold for the Information Commissioner’s Office, and we will be publishing our response to that consultation very soon.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that reply, but there is an insufficient sense of urgency on this. To some people these calls are not merely a nuisance; particularly for older people, they are a source of great distress, worry and anxiety, to the extent that some people will not answer their landlines at all, which is a safety issue in some cases. What are we doing to address the fact that existing regulations are not strong enough, which results in our getting all these robot calls and calls from people supposedly doing surveys? What are the Government going to do about that?

Edward Vaizey: I regularly meet a range of stakeholders involved in this matter. We have allowed the ICO and Ofcom to share information, and we are going to lower or remove the threshold for taking action. We have also massively increased the level of fines that can be levied. We work with telecoms companies on technology solutions and we have worked with the consumer group Which? on a range of reforms. Only yesterday, I met the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) to talk about how we can help vulnerable people with call-blocking technology, so we are engaged with this issue.

David Nuttall: The Minister referred to the nuisance calls taskforce report prepared by Which? on the Government’s behalf, which was published last month. He and I were at the report’s launch. Has he found its 15 recommendations useful, and if so, what plans does he have to implement them?

Edward Vaizey: We work closely with Which? on this issue, and I was delighted to see my hon. Friend at the launch of the report. It contains a number of recommendations, which we are looking at, and I am particularly taken by the idea of holding members of the board of a company responsible for this issue, so that someone is accountable. We will evaluate the recommendations and implement those that are suitable.

Museums and Galleries (Funding)

Douglas Carswell: If he will increase sources of private finance and sponsorship for museums and galleries.

Sajid Javid: This Government have done more than any of their predecessors to cultivate philanthropy and corporate sponsorship in support of our cultural sector. I commend all those individuals, businesses, trusts and foundations that support museums and galleries across the country.

Douglas Carswell: Museums and galleries right across the country—not just those in London—have never been busier or more successful. Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle of more tax breaks to encourage philanthropic support, and should the magnificent approach taken by the British Museum be encouraged by introducing wider tax breaks elsewhere?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Tax breaks are part of the incentives and the action that the Government can take to encourage more giving. The cultural gift scheme is an example, as is the increase in the annual cap on tax relief that the Government have implemented. We have also simplified the gift aid scheme, but there is always more that we can do. If he has any ideas, I would be happy to listen.

Topical Questions

Andrew Jones: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: The year 2014 ended on a high note for the Department as we secured a landmark deal to improve mobile phone coverage right across the UK. The new year has also got off to a good start: official figures released this week show that Britain’s creative industries grew at a rate of almost 10% in 2013 and delivered 66,000 new jobs. This is further proof that culture has a vital role to play in the Government’s long-term economic plan.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Superfast North Yorkshire has done a great job of rolling out superfast broadband across our county, making it one of the best connected in the country. I am now pressing for as many business parks as possible to be included in future plans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for as many small and medium-sized businesses as possible to have access to superfast broadband so that they can conduct their business as efficiently as possible?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has taken a strong interest in this issue on behalf of his constituents and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is right to praise Superfast North Yorkshire; the project is making excellent progress. Phase 1 is expected to complete in March this year, taking coverage in the county to 87%. Phase 2 will increase coverage to 89%.

Fiona Mactaggart: When research by the Responsible Gambling Trust reveals that a third of fixed-odds betting terminal users have a problem with gambling, is it not time to end the £100 maximum stake, which means that a person in my constituency can spend his whole income in just four spins?

Helen Grant: I know that the hon. Lady is concerned about these issues, and so am I. The Responsible Gambling Trust report endorsed the precautionary approach that we took in April, when we introduced proportionate and measured reforms that gave local authorities more power. I can also tell her that I shall be meeting the chief executives of all the betting industry companies in a few weeks’ time to see what more they are prepared to do.

Mary Macleod: The Minister with responsibility for sport visited Osterley and Chiswick on Monday to meet some of Brentford football club’s community sports trust’s fantastic apprentices. Does the Secretary of State agree that apprenticeships in sport are incredibly valuable for building the knowledge and skills needed for a successful career in the industry, and that we should encourage even more of them?

Sajid Javid: I know that Brentford is having probably one of its best years on the pitch. I am pleased to say that the club has done excellent work off the pitch too, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), went to see for herself. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) on the importance of apprenticeships in sport and the great opportunity they offer for individuals to develop important skills. That is why I am pleased with the support that Sport England already provides. Brentford FC is a good example to many others, showing what clubs can do to help their local community.

Pat Glass: The Minister and I entertained one another in a debate on nuisance phone calls about 18 months ago, when his response was, “It’s okay, guys. I’m on top of this. Something’s going to happen really quickly.” Since then we have had an action plan and lots of talking, but nothing has changed. When will he commit to a communications Bill to deal with the problem?

Edward Vaizey: I remember our entertaining exchange, and I take exception to the accusation that nothing has happened. We have already passed one piece of legislation and we are about to put through some more legislation
	to bring about some of the changes that people have called for. We do a lot of work with companies and with telecoms companies, and we have made a real impact on nuisance calls.

Pauline Latham: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the roll-out of superfast broadband in Mid Derbyshire, especially in Oakwood, Belper and Morley, where Morley school, for instance, cannot teach the national curriculum properly using the internet because of the unreliability? [Interruption.]

Edward Vaizey: Members on the Labour Front Bench are saying that the situation is absolutely fine and it is completely marvellous. I would not go that far, but that is a good assessment of our rural broadband programme. I know that in Belper, for example, at the end of last year 1,500 premises were connected, thanks to the rural broadband programme. I hear what my hon. Friend says about Morley school and I will be happy to engage with her on the specifics of that issue.

John Robertson: Superfast broadband seems to be a popular topic today. Does the Minister agree with the BT group strategy, policy and portfolio director that getting superfast broadband to 95% of the country might take until 2018? This was stated in an answer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 December. The gap between superfast broadband availability—73%—and take-up is 21%, so there is a shortfall of 52%. Does the Minister agree that superfast broadband might be priced just a little too high? What is he doing to close the gap between the 21% and the 73%?

Chris Bryant: Absolutely nothing.

Edward Vaizey: I do enjoy the running commentary that we get from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) throughout questions. Like the Duracell bunny, will he ever run out of energy? It is really impressive.
	In this country we have some of the lowest costs for superfast broadband, but I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), along with the hon. Member for Rhondda, will welcome our fantastic advertising campaign for superfast broadband, which I hope will bridge the gap between availability and take-up.

Nick Herbert: There are too many rural communities in my South Downs constituency that have no broadband access. West Sussex county council’s plan to achieve 95% superfast coverage by 2017 is excellent, but is it not important to ensure that the remaining 5%, which will cover many rural areas, have digital access? Public subsidy should be directed at those areas first.

Edward Vaizey: We are doing well in my right hon. Friend’s part of the world. West Sussex will get 94% superfast broadband coverage by the end of phase 1. That is £12 million worth of investment. My right hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian and I take what he says very seriously.

Sharon Hodgson: As we are well into the 100-year commemorations of the first world war, will the Minister assure the House, veterans in my area and my local armed forces network that she will ask Sky to reconsider the scheduling of the broadcast of matches on Remembrance Sunday, which has happened in Sunderland two years in a row, and instead schedule the games for the Saturday so as to respect the original intentions of that special day—remembering those who gave their lives for our country?

Helen Grant: It is a very special day and it is important always to remember those who sacrificed their lives for our country. I am very happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady about those issues.

Rory Stewart: I thank the Secretary of State very much for the focus that has gone on broadband in Cumbria. We have, however, faced a serious challenge with the European regional development fund. May I have his assurance that we will focus relentlessly on overcoming those problems to make sure that we can get the extension and deliver the broadband, as promised?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has been working very hard on this issue, and I commend him for the work he has done on behalf of his constituents and for bringing this matter to my attention again and again. My Department is working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government, Cumbria county council and BT to ensure that the problem is resolved. I can also tell him that, following initial discussions, I am confident that the project can be fully delivered to give a great result for residents and businesses in Cumbria.

Kerry McCarthy: Channel 4 has just launched its 360° charter, which is making a real commitment to improving diversity, to the extent that executives will lose their bonuses if they do not meet the targets. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that other companies follow suit?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady rightly raises a very important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy was at that launch. I have spoken a number of times about seeing more diversity in the media. For example, I talked about it just last month on Radio 4, mentioning both the work that Channel 4 is doing, which is a huge improvement on the past, and that done by the BBC, Sky and others. More can always be done, and if the hon. Lady also has some ideas, I would be happy to talk to her.

David Heath: I often ask questions about the provision of high-speed broadband in rural areas, but mobile phone coverage is just as bad. If I want to get a signal in my house, I have to clamber up on top of the kitchen unit or else trudge up the lane. Does the Minister realise that when we talk about 90% or 95% coverage, the 10% or 15% of people who are left out are always the same people—the people who live in rural Britain?

Mr Speaker: I think the House is worried about that kitchen unit.

Edward Vaizey: As part of our commitment from the Department of Health to get Britain moving, we might have to leave my hon. Friend’s home out of our rural broadband roll-out, so that he keeps moving about the house rather than taking calls from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] I am waiting to establish what point the Labour Front-Bench team are trying to make.

Chris Bryant: We want you to speed up!

Edward Vaizey: They want me to speed up. I can take as long as you want, Mr Speaker. As has been repeatedly stated from this Dispatch Box, a landmark deal at the end of last year with mobile phone companies will see partial not spots reduced by two thirds and not spots reduced by half.

Derek Twigg: May I return to the question I asked the Under-Secretary about sport? Clearly there is a problem with getting young people to continue to take part in sport once they leave school, and that is particularly the case for young girls. She referred to a number of programmes, so may I ask her how her Department is monitoring whether there has been a significant increase in the number of young people, particularly girls, taking part in sport after they have left school?

Helen Grant: Our £1 billion youth and community strategy is helping to make sure that more young people, especially girls, participate in sport. Sport England is also running a very good campaign, the satellite community sports club campaign, which tries to bridge the gap between young girls doing sport at school and continuing to do those sports in the community when they leave school.

Philip Davies: After the great success of the Tour de France in Yorkshire last year, which gave an estimated £100 million boost to the Yorkshire economy, is the Secretary of State as excited as everybody else in Yorkshire about the route to be declared next week for the Tour de Yorkshire, the new international cycling race which is being introduced? Will he join me in congratulating Gary Verity on the role he has played in organising that, as well as on bringing the Tour de France to Yorkshire, and support my campaign for him to receive a knighthood in the next honours list?

Sajid Javid: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. I remember visiting the Tour and being hugely impressed by the participation; people of all ages turned out for that spectator sport. It has been a great thing for Yorkshire and the new initiative is very welcome. I very much agree with his comments about what Gary Verity has achieved for Yorkshire; my hon. Friend’s point should be looked at.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Equality of Opportunity

Barry Sheerman: What steps she is taking to promote equality of opportunity for women in the workplace.

Nicky Morgan: Women make up almost 47% of the work force, but their representation falls in more senior positions. We want to ensure that women can take advantage of all the opportunities that their workplace offers them. For example, we are ensuring that parents can balance work and family life through measures such as extending flexible working and introducing shared parental leave and tax-free child care. We are also working with business to implement the recommendations in the Lord Davies report.

Barry Sheerman: May I push the Minister on that? We still lag behind France and the Scandinavian countries in how we allow women to release their potential as managers, members of corporation boards, scientists and engineers. We are lagging behind the competition, so why did she and her party not support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) which would at least have provided equal pay in the workplace?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman knows that the gender pay gap has narrowed again under this Government. For workers under the age of 40 it has almost been eliminated. He also knows that there are more systemic reasons for the continuing pay gap between men and women. Part of that is about the inspiration and advice that our young women get when they are at school. I am talking about the options, the careers and the subjects that they should be taking. That is a long-term systemic problem, which is part of the reason why, as Secretary of State for Education, I announced before Christmas that we were backing an independent careers enterprise company.

Mary Macleod: This Government have made the most progress ever on increasing the numbers of women on boards, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is still unacceptable to have only five female chief executives in the FTSE 100? Does she believe, as I do, that there is more to be done on the executive pipeline?

Nicky Morgan: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We need only 24 more women on boards to reach Lord Davies’ target of 25% of women on FTSE 100 boards. We now have no all-male boards in the FTSE 100. It is important to bear in mind that not all women want to become FTSE 100 board directors, but we should ensure that equality of opportunity goes right the way through all our workplaces.

Diana Johnson: On promoting equality, what will the Minister do about the 91% drop in claims for sex discrimination that have gone to an employment tribunal since her Government introduced the fee of £1,200 to take a case?

Nicky Morgan: In 2011-12, there were 1,700 employment tribunal claims which included, for example, maternity rights-based claims. Of those, 900 were ACAS-conciliated, 120 were successful at hearing and 430 were withdrawn. A claim can be launched with a payment of just over £200. It is right that people still have the option to go to employment tribunals, but the fact that the ACAS numbers are so high shows that it is possible to reach agreement between employers and employees.

Pauline Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that greater transparency on pay is vital in giving women in my constituency the best chance to reach their potential?

Nicky Morgan: I very much agree that transparency is extremely important, which is why this Government have backed the Think, Act, Report initiative that encourages companies to think very hard about equality and diversity, including pay, right the way through their organisations. We now have more than 270 employers signed up covering 2.5 million employees.

Female Bishops

Mike Freer: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the appointment by the Church of England of its first female bishop; and if she will make a statement.

Nicholas Boles: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I congratulate Libby Lane on becoming the new Bishop of Stockport and the first female bishop in the Church of England. I am delighted to see the Church of England moving into the 21st century, at least in this respect.

Mike Freer: Does the Minister agree that at last we have a great role model for the Church of England and girls in this country?

Nicholas Boles: I do agree with my hon. Friend. Role models such as Libby Lane are very important, which is why the Government are supporting schemes such as “Your Life” and “Inspiring Women”, which is led by the formidably impressive lawyer, Miriam Gonzales. I believe that her husband has a job, too, but I think we can all agree that she is the role model in that family.

Gender Pay Gap

John Howell: What steps she is taking to close the gender pay gap.

Nigel Evans: What steps she is taking to close the gender pay gap.

Nicky Morgan: The gender pay gap is at its narrowest ever and has been entirely eliminated among full-time workers under the age of 40. Of course the gender pay gap is still too wide, which is why we are closing it further by encouraging girls and young women to consider a wider range of careers, including well-paid careers in technology and engineering.

John Howell: Does the Minister agree that closing the pay gap further means that businesses could still do more to ensure that they recruit, retain and promote the best women?

Nicky Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Successful businesses know that they cannot afford to miss out on the talents and experiences of half our population, and the Government are working closely with business on that, especially through the Women’s Business Council,
	which was established by this Government in 2012. We are helping businesses to ensure that women can fully contribute to the country’s economic growth.

Nigel Evans: It is great that the pay gap has been eradicated for women under the age of 40, but if a woman happens to be aged between 40 and 49, the pay gap is 13.9%, and if they are aged between 50 and 59, it is over 18%. That is clearly unacceptable. Will the Minister now direct her attention towards ensuring the eradication of the pay gap for those aged over 40?

Nicky Morgan: As I have already mentioned, research shows that the pay gap is mostly not about direct discrimination, but about the jobs and sectors that women enter and the progress that they make, particularly if they take time out of the labour market. In November, we announced that we were investing over £2 million in helping women, especially women over 40 and those working part time, to move from low-paid, low-skilled work to higher paid, higher-skill work. That programme of work is delivered by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which will start by focusing on helping women to develop skills in science, technology, engineering and maths, retail, hospitality and the agricultural sector.

Fiona Mactaggart: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research shows that people stuck in low pay—women who have been in low-paid jobs for 10 years—are more likely to be unable to escape it. I have not heard from the Minister any strategy to help those older women escape low pay. It is all very well talking about money, but what is happening on the ground to help older women?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I have just given. We are investing money, working with organisations such as the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and particularly looking at enabling women in low-paid, low-skill work to develop further skills, for exactly the reasons that she cited—so that they can have higher paid jobs, which obviously provides more security for them and their families.

Sheila Gilmore: I wonder whether the Minister would accept that the Government made a mistake in not implementing compulsory reporting on gender pay. Not enough businesses have voluntarily taken up such reporting. It is not too late to make the change; perhaps she would like to commit to doing so.

Nicky Morgan: We as a Government have always said that we would keep that section under review, but I believe that it will be much better, and we shall achieve much more systemic change, with companies thinking very hard about the pay that they offer their employees and about the diversity in their work force, if we work with them on the voluntary approach—the Think, Act, Report approach—rather than burdening them with more regulations.

Homophobic Bullying

Douglas Carswell: What steps her Department is taking to reduce homophobic bullying of young people in England and Wales.

Jo Swinson: Homophobic bullying is absolutely unacceptable and we are committed to eliminating it. That is why we have announced £2 million of grant funding to support schools to address the issue more effectively. That, of course, complements the £4 million that the Department for Education currently provides to charitable organisations to tackle all forms of bullying. Schools policy in Wales, including bullying, is a matter for the Welsh Government.

Douglas Carswell: Only yesterday, another concerned Clacton parent contacted me about bullying. Obviously, and quite rightly, academies are self-governing. Notwithstanding that, is there specific advice that the Minister might like to give to academies to try to address that problem?

Jo Swinson: There is plenty of guidance available, but the point of the work that we are funding is to help develop further the evidence base on the most appropriate and effective forms of intervention, which we will be able to share more widely with schools, so that they know how best to tackle such bullying. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to these important issues; I only wish that the rest of his party’s members took the same approach.

Sharon Hodgson: According to Stonewall’s latest figures, more than half of secondary school teachers fail to challenge homophobic bullying, while 17% feel they are inadequately trained to tackle such bullying. Therefore, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to make sexual relationships education compulsory in the curriculum in mainstream teacher training has failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people, as teachers feel ill equipped to deal with homophobia in the classroom, or to advise children who approach them in confidence?

Jo Swinson: Sexual relationships education is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom. [Official Report, 21 January 2015, Vol. 591, c. 2MC.]

Under-occupancy Penalty: Disabled People

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment she has made of the effect of the under-occupancy penalty on disabled people.

Mark Harper: The spare room subsidy is about ensuring that the same rules apply in the social housing sector as in the private sector. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made available significant amounts of discretionary housing payments so that local authorities can deal with cases in which they think the specific circumstances are appropriate.

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Gentleman is a good Minister, but he will know that that is a nonsense answer. According to the Government’s own interim evaluation report, disabled people in adapted homes hit by the bedroom tax are not being awarded discretionary housing payments, because their disability benefits are causing them to fail the test. The Minister needs to look at this a bit more carefully.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is a little churlish in his response to my answer. I have looked at the discretionary housing payment guidance in significant detail and it gives local authorities complete discretion. Local authorities are the ones considering specific cases and they are in possession of all the facts. I trust them to make good, sensible decisions.

Philip Hollobone: Is there a list of local authorities that compares the number of disabled people who might require such discretionary help with the discretionary help they are receiving?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend raised a similar question at the previous Question Time and I put in the Library information on the amount of money the Government have made available to each local authority in the country compared with what they are spending. We do not have a list broken down by local authority of every single person affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy and their level of disability, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact information he requires, but I think I have done the best that I can.

Inequality

Kerry McCarthy: What steps her Department is taking to reduce inequality arising from socio-economic background.

Jo Swinson: The Government are committed to improving social mobility. That is why we have extended free early education to disadvantaged two-year-olds, introduced a £2.5 billion a year investment in the pupil premium, delivered 2 million apprenticeship starts within this Parliament and have more than 180 major employers signed up to the social mobility business compact to inspire young people and improve access to employment opportunities.

Kerry McCarthy: Bristol’s fairness commission reported last year and described Bristol as a “tale of two cities,” with some areas facing “persistent deprivation.” When the Government entered power, they refused to implement clause 1 of the Equality Act 2010, the socio-economic duty, which would have placed a duty on all public bodies to have awareness of the effect of economic inequality on their policies. Will the Government reconsider that, because it is an issue that they have completely overlooked?

Jo Swinson: It is not the Government’s intention to do so at the moment, but of course local authorities have plenty of discretion, powers and tools to tackle these issues. The hon. Lady rightly highlights that there are important issues of deprivation within local authorities and it is vital that they are tackled.

Low-paid Work

Pamela Nash: What estimate she has made of the number of women in low-paid work.

Jo Swinson: According to the annual survey of hours and earnings, 24.6% of women were paid below two thirds of the median wage in 2014. Although that is still too high, we are making progress as the percentage of women in low-paid work is falling compared with 2010, when the rate was 25.9%.

Pamela Nash: I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know, as we do, that according to the House of Commons Library women have lost six times as much financially as men under the policies of this Government. Does she think that is fair and what is she going to do about it?

Jo Swinson: I would be very interested to see the report, which I understand has been requested by the Opposition and has not been forthcoming. We have cut income tax for people on low pay, many of whom are women, and in particular, the majority of the 3 million people who have been taken out of paying income tax at all are women. The Government take these issues seriously to ensure that women and indeed men are protected in these difficult economic times.

Gloria De Piero: I was reading about the case of a woman who is told by her boss each day whether or not she has work by a text with a picture of a happy face or a sad face. Should those practices be banned?

Jo Swinson: As employment relations Minister I certainly would not endorse that as good employment practice. There are clearly significant issues with zero-hours contracts and the Government recognise that, which is why we are legislating through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill to make exclusivity clauses illegal. It is also why we are taking further steps to work with industry sectors to produce guidance so that best practice is followed in using such contracts, which work for some people, as the surveys from the CIPD clearly show. We need to ensure that the contracts are used properly and I agree with the hon. Lady when she points out that there are examples of bad practice in that area.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

William Hague: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 19 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill.
	Tuesday 20 January—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party on Trident renewal.
	Wednesday 21 January—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
	Thursday 22 January—Debate on a motion relating to the governance of the House of Commons.
	Friday 23 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 26 January will include:
	Monday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Infrastructure Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 27 January—Second Reading of the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by a debate on a motion relating to accommodation for young people in care. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Wednesday 28 January—Opposition day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 29 January—Debate on a motion relating to the Iraq inquiry, followed by a general debate on financial support available for restoration of open-cast coal sites. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 30 January—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of January will be:
	Thursday 22 January—Debate on the third report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee on the green deal, followed by a debate on the first report from the Justice Committee on crime reduction policies.
	Thursday 29 January—Debate on the second report from the Home Affairs Select Committee on female genital mutilation, followed by a debate on the second report from the Science and Technology Committee on UK blood safety and the risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Angela Eagle: May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, including all stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill next Monday?
	Even those of us who feel that the unelected and supersized Chamber at the other end of the building is in need of more radical reform can welcome this Bill. Prior to the creation of Labour’s senate of the nations and regions, it is only right that the Lords Spiritual should consist of women bishops as well as men.
	I also welcome the debate that the Leader of the House has scheduled for next Thursday on the report from the Governance Committee. I hope that the House will not only agree to the recommendations but agree on a timetable for implementing them so that we have a new management system in place before Dissolution. Will the Leader of the House tell the House how this will be accomplished if the motion is carried?
	The Committee stage of the Infrastructure Bill is due to conclude upstairs today, and the Leader of the House has announced that we will debate it on Report on 26 January. It is over seven months since consideration of the Bill began in the other place, so will he explain why last Friday 60 pages of amendments reforming the electronic communications code appeared out of nowhere? Why is the drafting of the amendments so bad that mobile phone operators have thrown into doubt the Government’s uncosted deal with them to extend mobile phone coverage? Will he now consider extending the Report stage to give the House the time it needs to improve these badly drafted amendments? Is this yet another example of this Government’s competence, or is it simply more chaos?
	Despite repeated Government promises that free speech would be protected, last week the Electoral Commission wrote to a range of political blogs warning them about falling foul of the Government’s lobbying Act. Bishop Harries’ commission on civil society and democratic engagement has said that the law is already having a widespread chilling effect on campaigning by charities and other organisations in the run-up to the general election. When does the Leader of the House intend to put section 39 of the Act into effect, as he has only a few days left? Will he now admit that despite all the false promises from Government Front Benchers, this law is having the effect they desired in silencing criticism of the Government and suppressing healthy democratic debate? Does he accept that the only reasonable thing to do now is to repeal this disgraceful assault on free speech?
	The Conservative election campaign continues to lurch from one embarrassment to another. First, we had the fiasco of the German road that, it now turns out, was airbrushed to remove all the potholes. This week the Conservatives have unveiled six election priorities, which, amazingly, make no mention of the NHS.
	Such is the Conservatives’ popularity that they have been caught spending tens of thousands of pounds buying their own Facebook friends, and now they are so confident of victory that the Prime Minister is running scared of each and every chance to be held to account in debates. He promised to be interviewed by Bite the Ballot in front of first-time voters, which every other party leader has now done, including leaders of the minor parties, such as the Deputy Prime Minister—even he turned up to his appointment with Bite the Ballot. The Prime Minister, however, has suddenly pulled out, absurdly claiming that of the 111 days left until the election there are
	“no dates that would work.”
	Then we have the saga of the TV debates. The Prime Minister has been clucking for days that he will not do them without the Greens, but he is actually frightened that he would be in for a roasting. Is not it blindingly obvious that that is a fowl excuse?
	The Liberal Democrats are not doing much better. After the Prime Minister rebuked the Tory Chief Whip for messing with his mobile phone in Cabinet, the Chief Secretary decided to take the secretary part of his job very seriously and leapt to reinforce the Prime Minister’s message, pointing out that he too had spotted others using their phones during Cabinet. Doesn’t everyone just love a teacher’s pet?
	I think that the Business Secretary is jealous. After being unceremoniously dumped as economic spokesman from the farcical Liberal Democrat cabinet within a Cabinet that is apparently designed to shadow the Cabinet while actually propping up the Cabinet, he has insisted that he is still economic spokesman and that his demotion is just a “minor internal matter.” That sounds like how the Tories refer to the Liberal Democrats.
	In just a few hours we will learn who has been nominated for an Oscar, and this year I think us Brits have got at least one in the bag: this Government will win the award for best farce.

William Hague: I welcome the opening remarks of the shadow Leader of the House: we are united in our support of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill and there will be a good deal of time to debate it next Monday. The allocation of time motion will provide for that, including a four-hour Second Reading debate. I hope it will enjoy the unanimous support of the House. We shall see.
	When it comes to the debate on the governance of the House, it will be important for us all to listen to the views of the House. The hon. Lady and I have both signed the motion tabled by the members of the Governance Committee. There is a great deal of support for their recommendations, some of which will require legislation in order to implement them, but the majority of them can be proceeded with very speedily. If the motion is passed, the relevant authorities will be empowered and, in effect, instructed to get on with those actions and the necessary recruitment processes.
	On the Infrastructure Bill, the Culture Secretary has been working on a tremendous improvement in mobile phone coverage in this country. The hon. Lady asked for more time on Report to discuss amendments. I might have considered that differently had the Opposition used the time they had asked for and obtained on other Report stages, but they did not do so. For instance, they asked for, and we provided, six days’ debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, including two days on Report, but the House rose early on both of those days by several hours. I think the time we have provided will be adequate to discuss the Infrastructure Bill.
	I will look at the point raised by the hon. Lady about section 39 of the transparency of lobbying Act, but some vigorous campaigning is already going on without anybody being silenced in the run-up to the general election campaign.
	The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the Government’s competence. I pay tribute to her, as I often do, because at least she can remember what she is meant to be talking about when she comes to the House. However, the Leader of the Opposition is having increasing problems recalling things, including whether he said he would “weaponise” the national health service, despite being asked seven times on television on Sunday
	and being challenged in this House. He could not remember the main issue—the biggest problem facing the country—in his party conference speech, and now he cannot remember what he said about the issue he has most often raised, which makes us wonder whether he would remember anything he was meant to do if he became Prime Minister of this country or, indeed, what the day was on any particular day. She is clearly in a stronger position.
	I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition remembers that he promised to freeze energy prices, and that when he stood at the Dispatch Box only 15 months ago he said:
	“Nothing less than a price freeze will do”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 912.]
	Yesterday, the awful realisation at last dawned on the Opposition that had we had a price freeze when they asked for it, energy prices would not now be falling, as they are. The cheapest energy tariff is now £100 cheaper than it was a year ago, meaning that it would be £100 more expensive had we frozen energy prices when they asked for that. [Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads about wanting a freeze because it is all there in motions they tabled in this House. Such motions demanded nothing other than a freeze, including one on 18 June, which stated:
	“That this House notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition to freeze energy prices for 20 months”.—[Official Report, 18 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 1185.]
	Seven months later, energy prices are falling, which would not have been possible. Yesterday, they decided that a freeze meant a cap, but that was the first time they had done so. From my own experience, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that reaching for a cap when in difficulty is not always a good idea.
	I pointed out last week that the Opposition have dropped 12 policies in under 10 days, and they have now been joined by a 13th policy. The Opposition have started to announce their policies in secret, such as their latest one to carpet the countryside with unnecessary wind turbines if they win the next general election, to which they do not want to give any publicity.
	The real story about what has happened this week is one of competence: the World Bank has confirmed that the UK is the fastest-growing G7 economy; UK manufacturing is now performing at levels not seen since 2002; and the pensioner bonds launched today will reward people who have worked hard and saved hard throughout their lives.

David Nuttall: Please may we have a debate on the accurate use of words and phrases? It would give Members the chance to make clear that there is a difference between the deficit and the debt, that positive action or positive discrimination is still discrimination, and that tax avoidance is legal while tax evasion is illegal.

William Hague: I am not sure, with only 40 sitting days until the Dissolution of Parliament, that there will be time for a debate, but it would be very beneficial to discuss such things at every opportunity. Of course, to know whether you are talking about the deficit or the debt, you must remember that you intended to talk about it in the first place, which is a particularly serious difficulty for the Leader of the Opposition.

Jack Straw: May I first invite the Leader of the House to examine the physics of freezing? Water can be frozen at any point between zero and absolute zero, which is minus 273° C, so I offer him the thought that our metaphor of a freeze is consistent with both prices being level and prices falling.
	May I express my gratitude to the Leader of the House and his private office, as well as to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, for their very active co-operation in working with my Committee to agree the motion—he has tabled motion 91, to which I have added my name—for debate on Thursday? I hope, if there is agreement, that we can indeed make rapid progress towards implementing the House of Commons Governance Committee’s recommendations, including for pushing the minor changes in legislation through both Houses.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman has given by far the best description from the Opposition Benches of what a freeze is meant to mean, but sadly it was not included in the motion on 18 June last year. I can see why Labour Members are thinking of water running out beneath them and ice cracking on top—I think that is what he was describing—because that is what is currently happening to their policy. Perhaps we have taken this physics discussion far enough.
	I pay tribute again to the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for putting together such a well thought out report that commands a great deal of support across the House. It is on the governance of the House, and Opposition Members who were paying attention would have been able to follow that. As he may know, I am also looking at how, even this Session before the end of this Parliament, we can pass the small piece of legislation required by the report.

Alan Reid: Following a storm more than a month ago, BT has still not restored a landline service to many of my constituents. Mobile phone services are also affected—for example, it took Vodafone 20 days to repair a fault in December, and a large part of Argyll has been without a Vodafone mobile service since last Thursday. Such delays are unacceptable. May we have an urgent statement from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on what can be done to make those companies carry out repairs more quickly in future?

William Hague: As I recall, this is the second time my hon. Friend has found it necessary to raise that issue, which is clearly a serious problem in his constituency, and I hope that BT and all those responsible will take full note of his raising the matter in the House. We have just had questions to DCMS Ministers, and I will alert them to the problem he raises.

Cathy Jamieson: Might we expect a statement from the Government on the potential job losses announced by BP today? If so, will it include the implications of those job losses, and the potential impact on the supply chain for that sector across the United Kingdom?

William Hague: Overall, as the House will recognise, the reduction in oil prices is beneficial to the British economy and indeed the world economy, but as those announcements
	show it can also have a damaging effect on employment in the North sea industry. That is why in the autumn statement the Chancellor reduced taxes on the industry, and he showed considerable foresight in doing so. The Energy and Climate Change Secretary is in Aberdeen today discussing the situation with industry leaders, and the Government are taking the situation seriously.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Leader of the House please confirm that, as indicated by the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison) last March, there will be a debate on the Government’s proposed mitochondrial donation regulations before Members are asked to vote on them?

William Hague: Regulations to allow the clinical use of those techniques for the first time were laid in Parliament on 17 December, as my hon. Friend knows. The regulations are affirmative and therefore subject to a debate in both Houses of Parliament. We are working on how to schedule that debate and where it will take place, and I hope to update the House soon.

Richard Burden: May I support what the shadow Leader of the House said about having two days on Report for the Infrastructure Bill? When it came before the House on Second Reading, the Bill already covered areas that required great scrutiny such as shale gas, Highways Agency reform and zero-carbon homes. Since it has been in Committee, new amendments have been tabled on mayoral powers, reforms to the Electricity Act 1989, and a range of other areas, including the electronic communications code that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned. Some of those issues were not covered by the long title, or by debate in the House of Lords or on Second Reading. Is it too much to say that if those measures are to get the scrutiny they need, we should have two days on Report?

William Hague: I always take seriously requests for further time on important Bills, but as I stressed to the shadow Leader of the House, my experience in my short time as Leader of the House—six months so far—is that when additional time has been asked for on Report, the days have not been fully used, and that affects how we regard further requests for time on other Bills.

Martin Vickers: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of noting the Westminster Hall debate last week on the economy of coastal towns? The importance of the coastal communities fund was raised by Members on all sides of the House. Can he find time for a debate on the future of the coastal communities fund, which is very important to constituencies such as mine?

William Hague: That was an important debate on coastal communities. It will have been an important opportunity for hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, to raise many of the issues that come up in their constituencies. I cannot promise a further debate on these issues, but he can use all the normal means, including the Backbench Business Committee, to ask for such a debate. He is a very strong champion of coastal communities.

Pete Wishart: For Tuesday’s debate on Trident renewal, would it be an idea to reorganise the furniture of the House, so that we have the Westminster establishment parties of Tory and
	Labour on one side arguing the case for £100 billion to be spent on Trident while indulging in austerity, and the progressive alliance of Greens, Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on the other proving the case for why that money should be spent not on weapons of mass destruction but on social programmes?

William Hague: I am sure hon. Members will be able to take part in the debate from whatever point of view and wherever they are sitting. It will not be necessary to reorganise the furniture. Of course, the basic furniture of the British constitution was supported by the people of Scotland when they voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, including those who live in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Bone: Will the Leader of the House arrange a statement next week on the leaders’ debate? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that national parties should be included, including the Greens. I understand that the Scottish National party is considering running candidates in England. If so, could it be included in the debate? If it runs in north Northamptonshire it will get more votes than the Liberal Democrats.

William Hague: I think it is fair to say that that suggestion will receive a mixed reception in the coalition Government, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the Green party also being able to take part in the debates if other parties that are not the long-recognised major parties of the country do so. I do not know why the Labour party is so afraid of having the Green party take part in the debates.

Barry Sheerman: I add my voice to the congratulations to the Leader of the House on the speed with which he has reacted to the Governance Committee report, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Those of us who were able to give oral and written evidence are very pleased, although I still remember the expression on my right hon. Friend’s face when I said that I wanted this place to be run more like John Lewis.
	May I join the call for two days of debate on the Infrastructure Bill? Has the Leader of the House seen the Consumers Association analysis published this morning that the taxpayer and the traveller will be burdened with £200 billion-plus to pay for this infrastructure? Is it not time we reconsidered HS2, the costs of which are adding up to £80 billion, money that could be spent on the national health service?

William Hague: There was a lot in that question. I have not heard the governance of the House being linked to HS2 before. That was an artful journey through many different matters. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the Governance Committee report. Many right hon. and hon. Members contributed, as he did, to its thinking and they were right do so. I will look at the analysis from the Consumers Association. I will, however, make the point I have made before: the time requested for the Report stage of Bills has so far not been well taken up.

Philip Davies: The Ministry of Justice has a woeful record on answering parliamentary questions on time, to such an extent that it has been chastised by
	the Procedure Committee. On 18 November I asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences had been released on temporary licence in each of the past five years. It is bad enough that that question has still not been answered, but given the nature of the question and the appalling events in Paris is it not essential that the Government are on top of how many prisoners convicted of terrorist offences have been released on temporary licence? Will the Leader of the House urge the Justice Secretary not only to answer the question, but to make a statement to the House so that we can see what risk this country faces from these kinds of people?

William Hague: My hon. Friend knows that the Home Secretary made a statement yesterday about our preparedness to counter terrorist attacks. It is important that Departments give timely answers to questions. I certainly attach a great deal of importance to that, as does the Procedure Committee. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has explained to the Procedure Committee the measures that he is taking to improve the performance of the Ministry of Justice on this. While that is taking place, I will remind my right hon. Friend of the specific question that my hon. Friend has asked.

Jeremy Corbyn: At the end of this month, the Foreign Office will receive a copy of the consultant’s report on the feasibility of the Chagos islanders returning to their homeland from which they were disgracefully removed many decades ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case, that there will be an imminent statement from the Foreign Office shortly after the report is received and that there will be an opportunity before the end of this Parliament for a full debate on the situation facing the Chagos islanders and the assertion of their right to return to the islands from which they were so wrongly removed all those decades ago?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing campaigner on this issue and I had discussions with him when I was Foreign Secretary. Indeed it was my decision as Foreign Secretary to set up this further feasibility study about the Chagos islands. It has always been intended that it would report at the beginning of this year; in other words, very soon. He will have to ask a Foreign Office Minister specifically about the Department’s approach. It is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, so he might have an opportunity to do so then, but I will remind the FCO that there is considerable interest in the House as to how the report will be handled and the FCO response to it.

Bob Blackman: This week marks the 25th anniversary of the expulsion and ethnic cleansing from the Kashmir valley of Hindu Pandits, who were forcibly removed from homes they had occupied for thousands of years. This weekend there will be a peace march ending at Trafalgar square, and in several Hindu temples across the country there will be services commemorating this evil event. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement or debate on this subject so that the attitude of the British Government to this terrible event can be put on the record?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will be aware of the long-standing position of the UK on this, which is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for us to try to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one, but we continue to follow developments in the region closely. I know that my hon. Friend has raised the issue before in debate and he will be aware of the further opportunities there are to continue to bring it to the attention of the House, as he has done today.

Joan Walley: There is growing concern in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire about the awarding of a contract for a PET scanner to a private company, Alliance. Given that local MPs have asked for a meeting with the chief executive of NHS England about this and so far have not had a reply, may I ask for an urgent debate in the House on the issue of procurement in the NHS and the wider implications it has for the reconfiguration of services?

William Hague: As the hon. Lady knows, matters of procurement in the NHS are regularly debated with Health Ministers and regularly come up at Health questions. There are many opportunities to raise it. She mentioned that she has raised it specifically with NHS England and I hope it will respond to her. It will owe her a quick response, given that people are clearly concerned.

Robert Jenrick: We all know that ISIS is taking lives throughout Syria and Iraq, but what is less well known is that it is also trying to take the soul of the region through a systematic and epic looting of antiquities and works of art on a scale that has not been seen since the end of the second world war. What is more, this is believed to be the third-greatest source of revenue for ISIS after energy and bank robbing. It is a national security issue, as well as an issue of great cultural concern to the world. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in the House on the issue, and perhaps enlist the support of his friend Angelina Jolie to give some international support to what is a really important issue?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this issue. I cannot pledge Angelina Jolie to engage with issues other than those on which I already work with her, but he is absolutely right that what is happening in that region involves the devastation of antiquities as well as so many atrocities inflicted on human beings, which are, of course, our top concern—particularly the enslavement of people and the tyrannical and brutal treatment of people living in areas taken over by ISIS, or ISIL. It shows the importance of the action we have taken with other nations, working with the Government of Iraq and with the Kurdish Regional Government. As my hon. Friend knows, that action is having some success in turning back the advance of ISIS, or ISIL. He will be able to raise the issue with Foreign Office Ministers at questions on Tuesday—if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker.

Chris Bryant: We all want to sort out mobile telephony coverage around the country, but the way in which the Government have proceeded by
	introducing significant amendments to the electronic communications code at the very last stage of the Infrastructure Bill is a wholly inappropriate way of doing business. The mobile network operators are furious about it, and we will not be able to support the changes, even though we would love to see proper change. Without two days for Report, it is going to be impossible to get this right. The danger is that we will then not have the change that the Government, the Opposition, the mobile network operators and everybody wants. The Government may lose in the House of Lords and lose their Bill.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises the same point as others, including the shadow Leader of the House. I do not have much more to add to what I said earlier. I said I would look at the evidence and representations on the matter and will always listen to concerns about adequate time for debating legislation. On any Bill for which representations are made for more time and more time is given, it is important to use that time—otherwise it takes up time to debate for other matters. [Interruption.] That has been the pattern so far.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says that he will use it—assuming he catches the eye, of course.

Nigel Evans: Is it possible to have an early debate on the plight of the dairy industry in the United Kingdom? I welcome the fact that inflation is running at 0.5%, but when supermarkets advertise milk at 89p for four pints—considerably cheaper than the price of water on their shelves—something is clearly going wrong. As my right hon. Friend knows, many farmers did not get paid for several weeks and the wholesale price they are paid has collapsed. May we have an urgent debate to ensure that the vitality of this important industry is preserved?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will be able to pursue the need for debate through all the normal methods, with which he is extremely familiar. Today, the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, our hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is discussing with the industry and the National Farmers Union how to help manage the volatility of prices, such as through the creation of a futures market. We recognise that milk prices continue to fall and that it is a concerning time for British dairy farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) will know that we have worked with the industry to open up new export markets, and exports are rising. We have given dairy farmers the opportunity to unite in producer organisations so that they have greater clout in the marketplace. As I said, the Minister is discussing with the industry and the unions what further we can do.

Grahame Morris: Notwithstanding the representations made by the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members in respect of the Infrastructure Bill, would the Leader of the House consider having a specific debate about the merits of, and safety factors involved in, undersea coal gasification? I have raised the issue in questions with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and I am told that an
	internal working group has been established, but would it not be beneficial, in the interest of transparency, to have a full debate, perhaps in Government time, so that my constituents and others can better understand the merits and potential benefits as well as the risks to the local economy?

William Hague: It is perfectly reasonable to request time to debate such matters, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the main opportunities for debates of that kind are now provided by the Backbench Business Committee, the Adjournment and Westminster Hall, and I suggest that he use those channels. Government time is not available for such general debates, important and interesting though they might be.

Jason McCartney: Tesco is pulling out of a planned store in Huddersfield, and Yorkshire-based Morrisons has announced that it is to close a store at Ravensthorpe, near Huddersfield. May we have a debate on the state of the UK’s supermarket industry, and its relationships with both suppliers and customers?

William Hague: Steps to promote independent retail were debated in Westminster Hall last year, but my hon. Friend raises the wider issue of supermarkets, and the grocery market is obviously undergoing a great deal of structural change. A further debate would allow the Government to give further details of our support for high streets and market towns—for instance, the £2.3 million that we are providing for the 27 Portas pilots and 330 town teams across England, the £10 million high street innovation fund, and our work on business improvement districts—so it could indeed be very beneficial.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Today, in Nottingham, Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire will celebrate 90 years of partnership work in rural communities, and celebrations will continue throughout the country this year. Much of that work depends on rural community councils, and much of their own work depends on advice, support and funding from the rural community network organisation Action with Communities in Rural England, or ACRE. However, ACRE has been informed out of the blue, with no notice, that its funding will be discontinued from this March, and the decision may be made by Ministers behind closed doors as early as next week.
	Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who is in China at the moment—or other Ministers in the Department to provide the House with a full impact assessment before any such decision is made, and to make a statement to the House? A decision that could cause as many as a third of rural community councils to shut up shop and a further third to restrict their activities should not be made behind closed doors.

William Hague: The Secretary of State is indeed in China, but I will of course inform DEFRA Ministers of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just succeeded in raising on the Floor of the House. No doubt they will wish to respond to him directly.

Jeremy Lefroy: There are extraordinary pressures on A and E departments in Stoke and the north midlands, although the excellent staff at Stafford
	County and Royal Stoke University hospitals are working hard to deal with them. Furthermore, a speedy return to 24/7 A and E services in Stafford is essential owing to the long-term acute pressures that will result from the doubling of the number of people aged over 85 in south Staffordshire and Stafford by 2030. May we have a debate on regional A and E provision, in the light of the increased number of complex medical emergencies?

William Hague: There has already been a good deal of discussion in the House about A and E services—indeed, the Health Secretary spoke about them in the House last week—and my hon. Friend will be aware of all the action that the Government are taking to try to relieve pressure on those services, nationally and in his own region. However, he is right to refer to local pressures, and I shall ensure that the Health Secretary is aware of the point that he has raised.

Tom Greatrex: May I return the Leader of the House to the subject of the Infrastructure Bill? In an earlier answer, he mentioned that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was in Aberdeen today, talking to representatives of the oil and gas industry. What he will hear from them is that the implementation of the Wood review and the establishment of the new Oil and Gas Authority, which has the support of all parties, including the Scottish National party, should be seen as a matter of priority, given the urgency of the situation in the North sea. That is one of a number of issues raised by the Bill.
	As several Labour Members have pointed out, there is a real risk that the authority will not be up and running when it should be, which would have a material effect on that industry. May I reinforce their pleas for a two-day debate on this important Bill on Report, given the range of issues that it covers?

William Hague: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the industry, that the Government are determined to ensure that the Infrastructure Bill is passed into law before our Session comes to an end in just over two months’ time, so I do not think there should be alarm in the industry about that. On the time for the debate, I made my point earlier and I do not want to add anything further to that at the moment.

Mary Macleod: Chiswick school in my constituency has done some excellent work in linking up students with local businesses, which is of course incredibly important in encouraging aspiration in the next generation, but there is often inconsistency in establishing such links in London and across the country. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education to look at the progress being made in careers advice in schools and also to see how many schools have a business champion on their governing bodies?

William Hague: These are important issues, and the Government’s focus is on preparing young people for the world of work more effectively and ensuring that businesses are engaged with schools in meaningful ways. Governors have a very strong role to play in that. As my hon. Friend knows, on 10 December last year the Education
	Secretary announced the establishment of a new employer-led careers and enterprise company with a specific remit to build up all this work. The Education Secretary also gave evidence on this to the Select Committee on Education recently, and I am sure that there will be other opportunities to raise these matters in the House.

Khalid Mahmood: My constituent Julie Hambleton and her family, along with the families of all the victims of the 1974 pub bombings in Birmingham, have been suffering for 40 years and continue to suffer as the perpetrators of that heinous act have not been brought to justice. They have tried to make an appointment to see the Prime Minister but that has not been possible. May we have a debate in this House so that the Home Secretary can directly address this issue, to at least give them some comfort?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for his constituents and he will have opportunities to raise this, such as with the Home Secretary at the next Home Office questions. I will of course make sure that the Home Office is aware of his concerns. I know my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister take these matters very seriously, so I will make sure they are aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has made today.

Henry Smith: Perhaps because I am a vexillologist MP, I have been approached by the office of the majority leader in the US House of Representatives to see whether it might be possible to facilitate an exchange of the Union flag flying over the Victoria Tower and the flag flying over the US Capitol to mark the long historical and friendship links between the United Kingdom and the United States. I would be grateful for the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and indeed you, Mr Speaker—as to how that might be facilitated.

William Hague: Personally, I am a great enthusiast for reinforcing and commemorating the intimate links between the United States and the United Kingdom. The US is our most important bilateral relationship and our greatest ally in the world, so we must take this request seriously. I will have to discuss—no doubt with you, Mr Speaker, and others in the House—how we go about facilitating and deciding on any such flag exchange, so I will come back to my hon. Friend on this point.

Kevin Brennan: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on his decision to move to Wales when he leaves the House? I hope he and Ffion are very happy at Cyfronydd hall.
	May we have a debate on improving Members’ knowledge of “Erskine May”, because the right hon. Gentleman will know—as will you, Mr Speaker—that on 19 March 1872 the Speaker condemned the imitation of the crowing of cocks and other barnyard noises in the House? If hon. Members knew their “Erskine May” better, would they not be less likely to greet the Prime Minister with a chorus of chicken noises for ducking the leadership debates?

William Hague: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal good wishes. My wife and I are looking forward to spending a good deal of time in Wales after the general election, and I thank him for his welcome. I am also grateful to him for pointing out the importance of “Erskine May”. There were some farmyard noises in the House yesterday, and I am sure that when the Labour party has stopped being chicken about debating with the Green party, there will be less need for such things in the House.

Caroline Dinenage: There has been a lot of discussion recently about the impact of falling oil prices on energy bills, but does the Leader of the House agree that transport companies should also be urgently considering how they can pass on any savings to their passengers? May we have a debate on that subject?

William Hague: This is an important point. People immediately think of the price of fuel for motorists, which is vividly displayed on every forecourt around the country, but it is also important that companies right across the energy sector pass on any reduction in prices. As we discussed earlier, the suppliers of energy to households are starting to do that, but it will be important for transport providers to do so as well, and I know that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary will be keen to promote that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: What a delicious choice! I call Diana Johnson.

Diana Johnson: Disappointingly, Morrison’s have decided to close their store at Bransholme in Hull, which will involve a loss of jobs. Surprisingly, I have just received an e-mail from the site managing agent criticising me for raising concerns about those job losses. This is at a time when the 14 new jobs at Siemens in Hull attracted 1,000 applicants. May we have a debate on the jobs situation, especially in northern cities? Also, two years ago, the Government scrapped the gathering of statistics to show how many jobseekers were chasing each vacancy. May we have those figures reinstated, please?

William Hague: The hon. Lady is entitled to raise issues from her constituency, including concerns about local employment, and I defend her right to say whatever she wants on that. On the question of employment in general, there will be job losses even in a growing economy, and there have been big changes in the grocery sector, as we were discussing a few moments ago. Nevertheless, the overall outlook in all regions of the country is very strong, with record numbers of people in work, including across the north and in Yorkshire and the Humber. The unemployed claimant count is down nearly 600,000, and is now at its lowest since July 2008. So the overall outlook is very good, and we will always be able to discuss that when we discuss economic matters in the House.

Robert Halfon: May we have a statement on street lights in Essex? I am currently campaigning for Essex council to allow Harlow council to turn the lights back on, following Essex council’s decision to
	turn them off after midnight. Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter, and will he ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to speak to Essex council, to see how Harlow can be helped?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has raised this issue before, and I welcome the work that he does on behalf of his constituents—as I am sure they do—on this important matter. He understands all too well that street lighting in Harlow is the responsibility of Essex county council, as the local highway authority, and that central Government are unable to intervene in local matters such as this. I encourage him to continue to make representations to the county council so that it can consider this important issue further and perhaps reach an agreement on street lighting in Harlow.

Kerry McCarthy: The Electoral Commission has written to political blogs, including the excellent “LabourList”, to warn them about complying with the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and telling them that what they do could be interpreted as regulated campaign activity. May we have an urgent debate to ensure that blogs are not prevented from reporting and commenting on the election campaign as they see fit, just as the mainstream print media will be able to do?

William Hague: We have had many debates. During the passage of the relevant Act through the House, it was extensively—if not exhaustively—debated, with many different opinions expressed. Nevertheless, it did not lack for debate and it was passed by Parliament. I have not noticed any reduction in the vast variety of opinions, information and disagreements coming forth on the blogs, all engaging already in the election campaign.

Philip Hollobone: I bring good news from Kettering, because the shops in Kettering had a great Christmas. Footfall in the main shopping centre in Kettering town centre was up 6.5%. In the month before Christmas the footfall for the east midlands rose by 12%, nationally by 15%, but in Kettering by a massive 24%. With far fewer empty shops than the national average and falling car parking charges, it is clear that Kettering is outperforming its rivals. May we have a debate in Government time about the optimistic future for our town centres, against the background of rapidly falling unemployment, increases in real living standards and the fastest growing economy in the G7?

William Hague: I pay tribute to the retailers of Kettering for attracting all those people, and to my hon. Friend for his encouragement of them. Perhaps all that footfall
	is people visiting Kettering to shake the hand of the Member of Parliament and to catch a glimpse of him themselves. He raises an important point. The Government have done a great deal to help retailers, particularly with the measures that the Chancellor has taken on business rate relief and the removal of employers national insurance for small businesses. These things are helping our high street stores, and I hope they will go on to even greater success in Kettering.

Derek Twigg: I have been talking to staff at our local hospitals this week and it is clear that the pressure remains relentless. One of the biggest problems is that hospitals are not able to discharge elderly patients back into the community. Despite what the Secretary of State for Health said earlier this week, the system is not working. Will the Leader of the House find time to allow the Secretary of State to come back to the House next week to make an urgent statement on what is being done to try to solve the problem?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Secretary of State for Health did refer to the issue and set out what the Government are doing on it. On the question of whether or not such things are working, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Health will want to return to the House whenever appropriate on all these issues, particularly if there are continuing problems. I will make him aware of the concerns raised in the House today.

Andrew Jones: Last week I visited Marton-cum-Grafton primary school, a fantastic village school in my constituency, to congratulate the team on its outstanding Ofsted result. Please may we have a debate on how we can further support rural schools to improve their standards in the way that Marton-cum-Grafton has, as these schools often face very different challenges from urban schools?

William Hague: Rural schools do indeed face different challenges. My hon. Friend and I, in our work in north Yorkshire, have always strongly defended rural schools, some of which can be very small but still do an extraordinary job. It is important that they are maintained for the future, given some of the distances involved. We value small schools, and we recognise that they are often essential to the communities they serve. We have introduced a sparsity factor to allow local authorities greater flexibility to target funding at small rural schools, and local authorities can choose to apply this factor if they wish and target further funds as well. The Government are very committed on these issues, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being such a strong campaigner for the rural schools in his constituency.

Backbench Business

Mr Speaker: Colleagues will be aware that two debates are to take place today. It might be for the convenience of the House to know that both are heavily subscribed and, although there is no formal limit on the opening speech, on the strength of discussion with other occupants of the Chair and reflection this morning in our meeting about the business of the House for the day, I feel it necessary to say to the House that the opening speech should be self-contained and as self-disciplined as possible—10 minutes if possible, but certainly no more than 15. The former Minister opening the debate is an immensely accomplished parliamentarian and I know that he can tailor his remarks accordingly. We look forward to hearing those remarks.

Contaminated Blood

Alistair Burt: I beg to move,
	That this House supports a further review of the circumstances surrounding the passing of infection via blood products to those with haemophilia and others during the 1970s and 1980s; notes the recent report from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood into the support arrangements provided for those who contracted blood-borne viruses as a result; also notes that the Penrose Inquiry into these events will shortly be publishing its findings in Scotland; further notes that those who contracted viruses and their partners and dependants continue to be profoundly affected by what happened; therefore welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment to look again at this issue; and calls on the Government to respond positively to the APPG report and engage actively with those affected with a view to seeking closure to these long standing events.
	I will do my very best to stick to the rules, Mr Speaker, as I know other colleagues wish to speak. There is a lot to say and interventions matter, but I will do my level best. My first task is to express my thanks to a number of people. First, I thank members of the Backbench Business Committee for being good enough to allow this debate. Secondly, I thank the large number of colleagues who supported the calling of the debate: those who attended the Backbench Business Committee last week; the many others who have signed today’s motion; those who have been in contact with me; and those other colleagues closely involved. Thirdly, I give a big thanks to the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), not only for their support today, but for the immense amount of work they have put into this issue over a number of years.
	Fourthly, I thank a small group of colleagues who have worked particularly closely with me: my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott); the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan); my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has been immensely helpful through his company; and a number of others. May I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) to her place on the Front Bench? She and I have had a number of conversations about this issue since she was appointed
	to her role and she has been concerned and engaged with it. We have worked with No 10 and the Prime Minister’s advisers directly, of which more later.
	I am also acutely conscious that all of us follow in distinguished footsteps we alas hear no more, from Peter Archer or Alf Morris, or, most recently, our friends Jim Dobbin and Paul Goggins, who respectively chaired and led the last debate held in Westminster Hall in October 2013. Paul, who had supported his constituents over a 16-year period before his death, is a particularly hard act for any of us to follow. In this regard, Paul’s great friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health is here to speak for the Opposition, and that is particularly welcome and important, emphasising how personally many of us have become engaged with the issue and how it has become one where both the Government and the Opposition feel a collective burden of responsibility for the events of the past. I hope they share a similar determination to reach a more satisfactory conclusion.
	Like almost any of us here today, I could fill most of the three hours allocated with ease, but that is not the way this debate must proceed. I will therefore briefly outline a history that we and those watching are wearily familiar with, and move on to discuss why the debate is taking place today, what our main issues are and what our hopes may be. I will, where possible, illustrate with some of the words of those who have been in contact with us, as this is a debate for them and for their voices.
	First, let me read from the opening to Lord Archer’s report, just to set the scene. He said:
	“Throughout the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, many in the UK who suffered from haemophilia were treated with blood and blood products which carried what came to be known as Hepatitis C, and some 4,670 patients became infected. Between 1983 and the early 1990s some 1,200 patients were infected with HIV, also through blood products. These infections had caused at least 1,757 deaths in the haemophilia community by the time this Inquiry started in February 2007, and more have occurred subsequently.”
	Those figures can, of course, be updated for current circumstances. He continued:
	“By the mid 1970s it was known in medical and Government circles that blood products carried a danger of infection with Hepatitis and that commercially manufactured products from the USA were particularly suspect. By the mid-1980s there were warnings of a similar situation in respect of HIV. But the products continued to be imported and used, often with tragic consequences. The reasons for the chain of decisions that led to this situation, and the alternative options which might have given rise to a different outcome, have been debated since that time.”
	Yes indeed they have.

Anne Main: It is fantastic that my right hon. Friend has brought this debate before the House, and I was pleased to support him at the Backbench Business Committee. Does he recall that when we made our presentation to the Committee its members were surprised that this was still going on, after such a long time? That is the crux of today’s debate: now is the time.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is right about that. I will go on to say why this debate is happening today, and that is one of the reasons. This issue has not gone away, and even more colleagues are now aware of it.
	Since the Archer report there has been some positive recognition by the state of its responsibility. Over the years, efforts have been made for financial provision,
	but a complex and incomplete patchwork has been the result. Some people have been left behind—those bereaved and dependants in particular. Treatments for the severest infections have improved markedly, which has, in general, of course, been good news, but they also bring their own ironic consequences in giving longer life to those with originally no expectation of it and not always a quality of life for which we would all hope.
	Efforts by the state to redeem itself have been hampered by a chronic inability to admit the past, to ensure that all the material was available for public scrutiny, and to give an opportunity to family members to ask the question that any one of us would need to ask: why and how has my loved one died? Its evasion of a public inquiry, the loss of key papers, the slow drawing out of what paperwork there was, and the failure to submit to questioning have left a mark of suspicion that lasts to this day.
	Before I turn to the why-now question, let me dwell a moment on the scale of this tragedy. One of the most moving speeches heard in this or any other Session of Parliament was when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) read out, unforgettably, the names of the Liverpool 96. He did so to let the world know that behind the tragic statistics that the 96 had become were people with names, lives and hopes. Consider this: for me to do the same would mean that I would be reading out nearly 1,800 names. We will hear some of their stories today, but I ask the House to reflect on the scale of this. In terms of death toll, this is the 15th biggest peacetime disaster in British history in which the black death, at 3.5 million, is the worst. The awful Aberfan, the name of which we all know, is but the 142nd, with 144 lives lost. Contaminated blood has killed 12 times more.

Jennifer Willott: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in cases where haemophilia is passed down through the generations, entire families have been affected by this terrible scandal? The Lewis family in my constituency is one such example. Hayden Lewis tragically passed away. His brother was also infected and has also since died. Hayden infected his wife Gaynor with HIV before he was diagnosed, which will have an impact down the generations. That is why these families deserve far, far better treatment than they have so far received.

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, and I have been grateful to her for her support. Let me put some flesh on what she has just said and on those figures. I will start with Hayden. His wife wrote to a friend of mine and said:
	“I would dearly like to see an end to the campaigning and put this issue to bed. There needs to be an apology, there needs to be a big overhaul of the various Trusts… definitely not to make you feel as though you are going ‘cap in hand’ to them. That’s disgraceful. I want to go to Hayden’s grave and say once and for all ‘it’s sorted.’ Then I will know he is resting in peace.”

Nadhim Zahawi: On the point about the support mechanism, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that the very organisations that were set up to support individuals, such as the MacFarlane Trust, do not treat beneficiaries equitably? My constituent who went to the trust and questioned the response times was branded a troublemaker
	and her applications for grants were either delayed or, in some cases, frustrated completely. That is the reality on the ground. Will he say something about some of those organisations?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is right that many beneficiaries have expressed deep concern about the workings of the trust. The all-party group report that came out yesterday will be addressed by other colleagues. On the MacFarlane Trust in particular he should know that I share his concerns. I do not believe that that trust is salvageable or saveable, and I will speak about that later.

Albert Owen: The right hon. Gentleman read out a list of people to whom he wished to pay tribute. May I add his name to the list? I am here today because constituents came forward after he sent out the letter on behalf of the all-party group. I pay tribute to him for that. When we talk about trusts across the United Kingdom, I feel that, because this matter predates devolution, there needs to be a UK response so that the Welsh Assembly and devolved Governments are not bearing the brunt of the problem themselves. This is a UK problem, and the UK Government should look either to work with those Administrations or to take the lead.

Alistair Burt: There is no doubt that these matters predated devolution. As most colleagues are aware, there is a Scottish inquiry going on. Almost inevitably when it reports, it must report on things that pertain to the United Kingdom Government. I notice that the Secretary of State for Health has joined us, which illustrates the importance of this issue to all of us. He is enormously welcome, especially given the burdens that he carries. The UK dimension of this is indeed very real.

Tom Clarke: rose—

Alistair Burt: I will give way, but I hope that Mr Speaker will be understanding.

Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Penrose inquiry. We are all awaiting that report with great interest. Given his discussions with the Prime Minister, is he in a position to tell us when that report is expected?

Alistair Burt: My latest understanding is that the Penrose inquiry has said that later this month it will announce when it will report so I think that by the end of January the leader of the inquiry will have announced when publication will take place. I will touch on that later; the non-reporting so far is one problem that we have had to deal with.
	Let me give one further brief story as part of the background to the statistics. I have been privileged to work with one family where three brothers died. To give an indication of what that meant, the sister wrote to me:
	“the story of my three brothers, all dead, as a direct result of the treatment given to them by the NHS. The impact on the family? A devastation that time has not and never will heal, owing to the lack of acknowledgement over these deaths by both the Government and the medical profession…Family life is never the same with
	any bereavement, and we can only cherish their memories and their offspring, but there are still so many un-answered questions as to the decisions made”.
	Each of us has a number of stories that we could raise, and I apologise for not being able to read out more.
	Why now? The answer is that there has been a lot going on in recent times. This Parliament began with the very first Back-Bench debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who I am pleased to see in his place. I am sure that that helped lead to an announcement in January 2011 by the then Secretary of State of further changes to the funds providing payments, but underlying issues remained outstanding. We were all approached.
	On 18 October 2013, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the issue. I will not repeat the detail, but it got a warm response from the Prime Minister who understood the problem and promised that he would put support into it, meet the gentleman that I wanted him to see, and take it up. To put this in historical context, the reason for approaching him was that the scale of the tragedy is certainly on a par with those issues for which the Prime Minister has apologised in this Parliament—Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday—having the bravery to recognise what had been done in the past, with the authority that only a Prime Minister could have.
	We took the Prime Minister at his word. I was proud to take my friend, my constituent and his colleague to that meeting. We said we needed No. 10 to offer to work on what more might be done to close off the issue, and since then the Prime Minister has indeed put members of his policy team to work, together with my hon. Friend the Minister. I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s engagement and I am, of course, hopeful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about that work.
	My question was followed up infinitely more powerfully by a debate on 29 October led by Paul Goggins, in which he outlined some of the issues that we agree are still to be settled. He spoke principally about the funds and people’s finances, the bureaucracy and inconsistency of the funds, the discrimination suffered by those who did not fit certain categories, the crude distinction between stage 1 and stage 2 hepatitis C sufferers, the inadequacy of funds for making discretionary payments, and the absence of transparency and accountability over the years. He suggested that if the Government were to continue to reject a public inquiry, there should be an alternative process, including:
	“In addition to fair financial support, those who have suffered so much are still owed a full explanation and a sincere, profound apology.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 201WH.]
	Hovering in the background of all our deliberations were a Government who were prepared to take on a public inquiry. In 2008, the then Health Minister for Scotland, now the First Minister, announced to her great credit the sort of judicial investigative inquiry on the transmission of infectious disease via transfusions in Scotland that has not been held for the UK as a whole. It covers effectively all the major issues dealt with by Archer, and will very likely have comments to make that will have a bearing on UK-wide policy.
	It may well have implications for financial considerations in respect of responsibility for what happens and what needs to be done.
	As I told the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), we do not yet have that report, but while MPs have waited for it we have not been idle. In April the all-party group and additional colleagues working with me, held two public meetings at Westminster. We wanted to keep the community informed of what was happening, discuss expectations and hear from them. As MPs attacked the issue yet again, we were asking the Government to focus on the key issues. Those meetings helped to reinforce our sense that we were talking about the right themes—the changes that life had brought for people who had not expected to live, and the financial considerations that that now brought them. There is the problem of leaving anything; the problem of mortgage and insurance; and the problem of the bereaved and the dependants, which we all know very well. They all have to be in the front of the Government’s mind as they approach this.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and pay tribute to him for the tremendous amount of work he has done on the issue. It would be fair to say that since he has been involved there has been a degree of progress, although not total progress, because we will not have that until we get some action. Does he agree that many of the families feel very strongly about this and often feel frustrated by the lack of progress?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and I appreciate them very much. Yes, one thing we were told in our meetings in April was that people are sick of coming to Parliament. They have been coming for many years and many of them will feel that even today, but this is the best we can do as Members of Parliament. We know that those on both Front Benches are listening.

Zac Goldsmith: I must admit that this issue was not on the radar for me until recently, when I had a discussion with a constituent who was one of three siblings all of whom were contaminated as a consequence of this blunder. I want to put on record my gratitude for the work that my right hon. Friend has done and my support for this campaign. I wish him all the best and all my support as it progresses.

Alistair Burt: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend, but the gratitude should actually be given to the sufferers and their beneficiaries who have made an attempt to approach MPs, sometimes for the first time. This year, we were able to bring it home to people that despite all the privacy and other reservations they might have had—some have not been able to tell family or close friends what they have been suffering—there is a need to approach MPs such as my hon. Friend to make them aware of the issue. That has been a new element of the campaign and is another reason for this debate.

Andy Slaughter: I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, who has cross-party support on this issue, but I think that he is being very modest and that his intervention with the Prime Minister has helped to galvanise the position.
	Given that it now looks as though Penrose will not be published until late March, is there sufficient time to get that settlement before the general election campaign and the election itself?

Alistair Burt: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I do not think there is time, because I think it is possible that Penrose will have such far-reaching implications that no Government could make sensible decisions on future financial considerations until it had reported. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to say a little more today about what might be done outside the financial considerations. I think that a conclusive settlement cannot now be reached. Penrose was originally supposed to report in March last year, which would have given time. That was the timetable we were all hoping to work to, but needs must and we are where we are.

Jennifer Willott: On the point that my right hon. Friend was just making about what could be done without any more money being made available in the interim, does he share my concerns about the process that people have to go through to access the support that is already available, how invasive and demeaning the processes often are and how much that upsets those who are already in a very difficult position, when they are simply trying to get what they should be getting anyway?

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend. The report by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who I will call my hon. Friend for these purposes, covered those issues in some detail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North will speak about some of the practical issues to do with financial provision.
	Following the public meetings, we decided to take the opportunity to use new technology. Both the all-party group and my group of colleagues went out with surveys to as many people as we could find. I am deeply grateful for support given by YouGov and the personal support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, whose commitment and resource allowed us to do this job. It is a measure of the impact of this problem that about 1,000 people responded to our surveys, which is statistically way above the normal response to such surveys. We are profoundly grateful to those who responded so honestly and no doubt with much pain as they went over difficult and hurtful circumstances in an effort to inform us and the Government of what they had experienced. Key findings in our survey included the ideas that lump sums rather than ongoing payments might suit some sufferers better, that ongoing support for widowed partners and spouses was vital and that some form of inquiry was still relevant. All our findings have been reported to Government.
	We then asked more people to contact their Members of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has just mentioned. The number of colleagues now involved is well into three figures, and the number who have signed our motion can be seen on the Order Paper. I have colleagues who wanted to be here but could not—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friends
	the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Erewash (Jessica Lee). I could go on about their stories for some time.
	I do not expect the Minister to deal with the possibility of further financial relief today. I accept that the delay to Penrose means it is possible that it could report in such a way as to require some form of response from the Government that might have financial implications which it would be unwise to commit to now and have to revise again quite soon. However, I put it on record that I do not expect that closure can be effected without some further financial provision. There will always be inevitable arguments about money. The truth for a Government is always that at any one moment there is money and no money. When the banks needed to be bailed out, money was found. When we needed to compensate those who had lost their futures through Equitable Life, even if all the money could not be found, over £1 billion was found. If, God forbid, the country were to have a catastrophe tomorrow, we would find money. A catastrophe? Perhaps 1,800 dead is a catastrophe.

Gerald Howarth: Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has done on this. I do not have any constituents who are affected, but I have served in this House, along with him, since 1983, and I feel that this is business that neither the House nor successive Governments have properly resolved. Does he agree that as this blood was provided by the national health service—by the state—it is therefore the responsibility of the state to sort out the affliction that has affected these people over decades?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend puts it very well. He is yet another example of an MP who does not have a constituency interest but has recognised the responsibility that we all share, and the state shares, for what has happened.
	Only this morning we saw in one of the newspapers that local authorities had spent £5 billion on consultants. As I say, at any one time a Government will have no money or can find money.

Gordon Marsden: I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I want to touch on his point about payments. My constituency has four times the national mortality rate from hepatitis C—of course, not all of it acquired from contaminated blood—and a number of constituents who are living with the condition have written to me about it over the years. The latest comments have been about getting a conclusion to this process as fast as possible. One of them says:
	“Existing mechanisms should be disbanded and replaced as quickly as possible with a new improved arrangement for processing payments.”
	Is that not a short-term consideration to go with the longer-term ones?

Alistair Burt: I personally think that it is. That process will be informed by what the all-party group has spoken of, and its members will speak today. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I am not sure that I fully share the conclusions of the all-party group’s report with regard to the
	MacFarlane Trust. There is a great deal of detail in the report. As I was not responsible for compiling it, I can be lavish in my praise of the effort that went into it. A lot of hard work was done by a lot of people connected with the offices of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, and I am grateful for that. On the basis of information contained in the report and other information that we have, I do not believe that the MacFarlane Trust is saveable or capable of reform. I and others have seen a copy of a letter to the Secretary of State from two former trustees that is quite damning of its leadership, and one from some 68 beneficiaries that is equally uncompromising.
	It would be unfair to go into more detail now. It may be that the trust has an impossible role. However, there should be no doubt that a body set up to support beneficiaries and those who have been victims of what happened is anything other than on their side—not an arm of Government, nor seen to be, and prepared to take on the Government to argue for the funds it needs without fearing a conflict of interest. The Department of Health has contributed to the situation by structuring too cosy a relationship, possibly in its own interests, and that has to stop.

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend has worked very hard on this issue, as has the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I attended a public meeting yesterday with survivors and their families, and there was a very strong feeling that they have just had enough. They have been through a series of betrayals and disappointments at the hands of those who were supposed to help them, including trusts, departments and the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is our last chance to get this right for those people who have to suffer so very much?

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words, and I agree with her. I will come to the trust invested in us in a moment, but, given the effort that has been put in, the work being done by Members on both Front Benches and the acknowledgement that we all share this responsibility, perhaps there is a chance that we will get to where we want to be.
	Mr Speaker has been very generous with time, so let me finish. Last week, on the day that we circulated information about today’s debate to the community, I received the following e-mail, which was addressed to all of us as MPs:
	“Thank you for your continued persistence in this issue. I wish to continue to be informed of any developments but I am very bitter that my husband of 21 years who got Hep C as a child from being a Haemophiliac sadly lost his fight and passed away yesterday after years of suffering due to Hep C. He never had an apology for all the years of ill health, he was a fighter right up to the end but it was also a fight he should never have had to deal with. Again on behalf of my husband, my daughter and myself thank you for your continued support and I hope a speedy result is had for those who still continue to struggle with the physical and mental stress this situation has caused.”
	Finally, a friend who was told as a child that he had HIV and hep C, and a life expectancy of four years if he was lucky, says:
	“I find each and every day is like being on death row for a crime I didn’t commit. I long for the day that I can wake up in the morning and not have to fight the Gov’t for the right to have a better life. Imagine what it’s like to believe for years that what we have been given was an accident. The medical staff constantly told us ‘it was an unavoidable accident’ only for us to learn the truth for ourselves. Where did my human rights go at 12 years old. And WHY do I still not have any?
	When you are stripped of your pride, your dignity, your finances, your job, career, your future, what do you have left? Your spirit and your fight, that’s what. Which is why we will be sitting there on Thursday and we will keep coming back until justice is done or the last one of us dies.”
	As MPs, we have been privileged to be given the deepest, most personal details of these people and their loved ones. Some of us have been given family medical records, people’s deepest, darkest secrets and their hopes and fears. We have been privileged to have that. The words “devastation” and “struggle” appear far too often in the stories we deal with. We are not talking about a tiny handful of people, but about thousands who still feel wronged. As Members on both Front Benches prepare for an election, let us ensure that this Parliament as a whole remains committed to providing, finally, the best closure for those who trust us to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In order to try to accommodate everyone who wishes to contribute to this important debate, I have thought it necessary to impose, with immediate effect, a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Such limit may have to be reviewed, probably downwards, in the course of the debate.

Diana Johnson: May I start by thanking the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this debate and for all his incredibly hard work over the past year or so in championing this cause? I also thank him for his kind remarks about the late Paul Goggins, the late Jim Dobbin and the late Lord Morris.
	I co-chair, along with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and it has been a privilege to be involved in putting together the report. I think I speak for both of us when I say that many of the contributions made by the nearly 1,000 people who gave evidence to the APPG were harrowing and at times very moving. The substantive report would simply not have been possible without those submissions. They are quoted throughout the report and highlight in vivid detail how the current system of support is not fit for purpose. Our report is clear that there needs to be dramatic change to the level of support people get, and the way in which it is managed, before we can even hope to achieve closure for these people. Needless to say, my biggest thanks go out to the whole community of people who have been affected by this tragedy.
	In addition, I thank YouGov and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who generously helped put together the survey; the Haemophilia Society, which provides the all-party group’s secretariat, and particularly its chief executive, Liz Carroll, without whose help we could not have conducted the inquiry or produced and printed the report; and Fiona McAndrew
	and Thomas Stephens, who both worked so hard to put the report together. I am also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is on the Labour Front Bench, and that the Secretary of State for Health and his Minister, who has direct responsibility for this area, are also present.
	I want to highlight two matters. First, I want to clarify the issue about the number of people infected with hepatitis C. Since we concluded our inquiry, several people have got in touch about the figures. We state at the beginning of the report that, historically, it was estimated that more than 30,000 people were infected with the virus during the relevant period, and the figure was given in the Government’s 2011 review of support for those affected. Figures for the numbers affected by haemophilia derive from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, and those for the number of people without bleeding disorders who are infected are estimates from an academic study.
	I want to make it clear that no support package would extend to anywhere near such a number, because many of those originally infected have—unfortunately and sadly—died, while some cleared hepatitis C at the acute stage and others, especially those infected through a blood transfusion, would find it very difficult to link their hepatitis C infection with a single period of NHS treatment and so could never qualify for help in practice. It would be a shame if any Government used such a figure to argue that it is too costly to expand support. In practice, trust-based assistance would cover only a much smaller number of people—fewer than 6,000—and any consideration of the costs of extending the support package should take that into account.
	Secondly, I want to highlight the case of my constituent Glenn Wilkinson, who was infected with hepatitis C from NHS-supplied blood products. Without Glenn, I would never have become involved in the all-party group. He is a resolute and determined activist, and he has campaigned vigorously for more support for those affected. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for keeping on going, and for fighting for what is right.
	As a minimum, Glenn would like a number of measures taken to reach a full and final settlement for all. I will set out what he has told me in the past few days and how it fits with what we said in the report. First, he wants to remove the distinction between stage 1 and stage 2 hepatitis C, because the majority of people in stage 1 do not receive ongoing payments. The distinction is based on a decision that those in stage 1 are not in a state of ongoing need, but our inquiry clearly showed that they are in need. The accounts we received show that the Government need to rethink the current system, which denies ongoing support to those in stage 1. We therefore recommend that the Government provide ongoing payments to all people with stage 1 hepatitis C at a level to be set by a public health doctor.
	Secondly, Glenn wants all widows and family members of deceased infectees to have equal access to financial support, irrespective of the infection that caused the virus. We recommend that all widows of hepatitis C infectees, who are currently denied any ongoing support, get the same support as those of HIV infectees. We also recommend that the families of deceased hepatitis C infectees should get the same support for at least nine months after the primary beneficiary dies, as is already the case for those with HIV. Thirdly, Glenn wants the
	support to be simplified and administered by just one trust, rather than by the five trusts that currently exist. Our report recommends that the Government review the support provided, because it is a mishmash and a hotch-potch.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate my hon. Friend and other Members involved in producing this excellent report. One of my constituents affected, Councillor Bill Payne, has praised the report. On her point about the piecemeal nature of the support available, I must say that I was really struck by that when I read the report. It is difficult enough to deal with the health care system and the welfare system without the additional burden of bureaucracy, and it seems that some of the organisations involved are not very good at responding to people’s needs, so I agree that that needs to be addressed urgently.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful for that intervention. I think I should be allocated an additional minute that has not been put on the clock. [Interruption.] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Fourthly, Glenn told me that he thinks it would be fair to see priority access to NHS treatments for those affected, and that is rightly one of our recommendations. He also wants automatic passporting to employment and support allowance and disability benefits for all infectees. Because this is an all-party group, that recommendation is not included in the report, but I think it should be considered by the Government. Just today I received a message from someone who said that the money they get from one of the trusts is now being spent on paying the bedroom tax—I am sure the Minister does not think that that is what trust money should be used for. Once the Penrose inquiry is published, we hope there will be no further delays, or that any delays will be minimised in any inquiries that the Department of Health and Government need to make.
	I will end with a quote from a person I think was very brave to come forward. She is an HIV infectee and the widow of an HIV-infected husband:
	“I refuse to be a victim. Despite everything I cherish my life and count my blessings. I have faith that this will end soon and maybe then, my talents, intelligence, spirit, sense of justice, experience and energies can be better directed at contributing towards and being part of a better society. I pray for the day when this Trust is out of my life. I do not think that is much to ask.”

Jason McCartney: As co-sponsor of this important debate I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it. I also thank the Health Secretary and the shadow Health Secretary for their attendance in the Chamber, which shows the significance and importance of this issue.
	One of my first speeches as MP for Colne Valley came on 14 October 2010 in a Backbench Business Committee debate on contaminated blood. Four years and a few months on, and we are still asking for a similar conclusion to this scandalous saga: for the Penrose inquiry to be published; for the trust offering financial assistance to operate in a fairer and more transparent way; and for a final settlement and an apology to the infected community from the Government of the day.
	By 2010, 1,800 of the 4,800 people infected with hepatitis C had died, and of the 1,243 people who contracted HIV, only 345 remained. Today the number of survivors has fallen even further, and with each month of delay more of the infected community will not live to see any closure to this scandal. The date for the publication of the Penrose report will be announced shortly, and as it covers pre-devolution Scotland’s NHS treatment it will have implications across the United Kingdom. I implore the Government to respond positively to its findings.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has been working tirelessly with No. 10 on behalf of the infected constituents to try to get a final settlement, and I praise him for that work. As the motion suggests, I praise and welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to look into this situation, which for too long has been ignored by Administrations.
	As the Penrose inquiry is imminent and discussions on a final settlement are under way, the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), set up a survey with the infected community to ask how it felt about current financial arrangements organised through the Skipton Fund, the MacFarlane and Eileen trusts, and the Caxton Foundation. The survey received 961 responses, the majority of which were unhappy with current arrangements. I thank Tom Stephens, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his co-operation, and of course Liz Carroll and the Haemophilia Society for their help in compiling this important report.
	The human stories from the infected community are the most poignant, and the replies to the survey contained hundreds of pages of heartfelt responses from those who have faced hardship and tragedy due to their illnesses. A woman from my local area asked me to relay her story to the Health Minister. Melanie was infected when she was a child undergoing surgery. Her parents received the terrible news that she was HIV-positive when she was just eight years old. Now 36, Melanie has been unable to fulfil her aspiration of becoming a paediatric nurse or a play specialist. Instead, she must rely on Government support and assistance from the Eileen trust. She wants what many in the infected community desire: closure to the contaminated blood scandal, so they can live the rest of their lives in dignity and without having to beg for each bit of support. It is her and others I am thinking of today.
	Another constituent, who wished to remain anonymous, described the 30 years of hopelessness, pain and medication that followed his infection with HIV, hepatitis B and C, and blood containing variant CJD, when he was just 12 years old. Not only has that severely limited what he could achieve in adulthood in terms of a career and a family, but he describes the stigma surrounding the diseases and the fear of discovery by those ignorant of the circumstances involved in the initial infection. The all-party group’s report on the survey makes a number of recommendations to improve conditions. I hope the Health Minister will respond positively to them, so that we can move forward. That is very important.
	Finally, while this Administration has been open to improving the situation for those infected with contaminated blood, what they really need is a final resolution. The
	Prime Minister has shown great courage and great strength in apologising to the victims of Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday. He can now take the lead on this issue and apologise on behalf of the nation to those infected with contaminated blood. With the work of other Back-Bench Members, the publication of the all-party group report and imminent publication of the Penrose report, there will be no better time for the Government to commit to improving the conditions of those infected. We have waited long enough.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call any more speakers, it may not have escaped the notice of Members that there is a problem with the clocks in terms of each Member’s allotted time this afternoon. May I reassure Members that I will also be timing speeches to ensure that they have the correct amount of time and are not short-changed? I appreciate that seven minutes is a short period of time. If the clock indicates that you do not have any more time, I advise you to keep talking until I ask you to resume your seat. I understand entirely that this is not what normally happens, but I want to be fair to every Member. Hopefully, the fault will be corrected. None the less, Members should keep an eye on when they start speaking. Adding seven minutes to the clock is not really that challenging, I hope.

Jessica Morden: I went to the launch of the report by the all-party group yesterday. On behalf of my constituents who are affected, may I say a very big thank you to hon. Members and former hon. Members who have pursued this issue over the years to publish the report, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)? It is hard to believe that, after all these years, this is the first survey of those affected by this scandalous tragedy. I support wholeheartedly the efforts of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) to secure this debate and all the work he has done. Even though the Penrose report has been delayed, we cannot delay talking about this matter—it has taken far too long already.
	I support the recommendations in the report that deal with the experiences that constituents such as Lynn Ashcroft have had. I spoke to her last night on the phone. She had been reading the report and described it as “very comprehensive and moving”. Lynn’s late husband, Bill Dumbelton, was a haemophiliac. Bill was one of the first haemophiliacs to treat himself at home with cryoprecipitate. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C from the blood he was given. He lost his job with BT in the 1980s after he told the occupational health department about his HIV status.
	Sadly, Bill died at the age of 49 and Lynn was widowed at 35. Bill had no life cover. As Lynn explained, because of his haemophilia no one would insure “people like him”. As well as having to come to terms with the loss of her beloved husband, Lynn was left with the mortgage and other financial challenges. Lynn did receive money through the Skipton Fund, although she feels she had to jump through many hoops to get it. It took her two years to get to stage one, during which vital
	medical records were lost. In her words, the Skipton Fund process was “brutal”. Several appeals in three to four monthly intervals over two years made her grieve all over again. It took a huge toll on her personally. As Lynn says, the Government cannot bring back the dead or restore their health, but they can award a financial package that will ensure survivors and their families are financially secure for life. In her words, she wants to see no more charities, no more funds and no more begging. Lynn has been helping other widows to get through the overly complicated system. I hope that, as a consequence of the report, the Government will act on its recommendations.
	Bill died in the same year as Colin Smith. Colin’s parents, Janet and Colin, live in my constituency. Colin’s tragic story is on the “Tainted Blood” website, as is Bill’s, and the story of his extremely short life illustrates why we need a public apology, which is long overdue. Colin went into hospital at eight months of age for a minor ear condition. As a haemophiliac, he received factor VIII, which the family learnt following a freedom of information request came from a batch from a prison in Arkansas. He spent his short life fighting illness. He died, aged seven, of AIDS and hepatitis C. The family did not know he had hepatitis C until three years after his death. That was kept secret, as so much has been kept hidden. It was a real battle to discover that.
	On behalf of the family, may I say they are angry that there was never a public inquiry and that the full findings of Archer were not accepted? They passionately believe that more should be done to help those still living with the consequences of what Lord Winston described as the worst treatment disaster in the NHS. They have taken comfort in the friends they have made through the “Tainted Blood” campaign, but say they have not felt strong enough to attend the constant funerals, as their friends pass away. The Smith family and others need and deserve closure.
	Two days ago, it was the 25th anniversary since Colin’s death. This was the tribute on the “Tainted Blood” Facebook page:
	“Today marks the 25th anniversary of the death of Colin Smith. He was a haemophiliac, but despite that lived a normal fun-filled life, along with his two brothers and his mum and dad. Then, in the middle of the AIDS crisis, he was given a non-emergency operation, during which he was given a batch of blood product. Colin died of AIDS, aged seven, in Janet’s arms, weighing around the same as a baby. His family have never recovered from it, and never will.
	Please, as you read tomorrow’s APPG report and as you watch the debate…remember Colin and all of those who, like him can’t be there with us. Please remember all of those who might not see the end of this year…Thousands of people, like Colin, simply didn’t make it this far. He never had the chance to join the cubs, play football for his school, have a girlfriend, go travelling or get married…Instead, his short life was filled with hospitals, doctors and illness. He was just a little boy, but a very special one who we, at TB, always keep in mind as we campaign.”
	While long overdue, it is time for a public apology and a final settlement. Anything less will just continue to hurt the innocent victims and their families who, through absolutely no fault of their own, have had their lives torn apart by this national scandal.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has explained this tragedy extremely well. I first became
	aware of the issue in the early 2000s when I was a member of the all-party group on hepatitis C. I would like to pay tribute to the work of Jim Dobbin, whose memorial service it was yesterday. He was a great campaigner on a number of health issues and will be sadly missed.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on doing a wonderful job to secure the debate, and on working so hard on this issue. A constituent of mine recently told me that attending a meeting chaired by him in the House had left her more reassured than ever that he, and the group of MPs involved, would eventually obtain a decent settlement for all victims and their families.
	I have a very old friend who has haemophilia. He has kept me informed on the issue over many years but is not very well these days. I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Mrs Ward. She campaigns on the issue on behalf of her family, who have been very badly affected by it. It is an issue of compassion; it is an issue for our generation; it is an injustice and a scar on the NHS. It has to be resolved.
	We all feel for the people who are continuing to struggle with the aftermath of this decades-old mistake. The right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) made the point that this blight can run down the family for years. Obviously we understand the background of the original lack of understanding and the medical challenge to treat people with haemophilia, not knowing with security that the blood was safe. It is good that Governments have now recognised the extreme harm and the disaster that this was for victims, for which compensation was necessary. The arrangements put in place in 2011 were a major step forward.
	I want to make three points. The first is that the APPG’s excellent report highlights the confusing system for compensation, with the five separate bodies all receiving Department for Health funding. There are two private companies and three registered charities; it is too opaque. I hope Ministers will look to see if there is some way of improving the signposting to ensure that people can find their way through it.
	The second point is that even if one understands the funding to which one is entitled, the process of claiming it is difficult, confusing and onerous.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people need help through the difficult and complex process to ensure they get the outcome they deserve?

Oliver Heald: Yes, I do agree. The hon. Gentleman will know that there were people who underwent treatment for hepatitis C, but somehow the NHS has lost their records. That affects their applications. As the hon. Gentleman says, some way must be found to support people in this complex process.
	One of my constituents tells me that new treatments for curing genotype 1 hepatitis C have been approved, but access seems to be granted only on “compassionate grounds”. Apparently, that excludes that constituent. She describes it as a “painful irony” that the problems that led to the NHS providing contaminated blood in the first place are now denying a survivor the appropriate treatment. I hope the Minister will look into this case,
	so that rather than having to prove compassionate grounds it can be dealt with as an entitlement.
	The tragedy of this is deeply upsetting, and we must step up to tackle its legacy. The Penrose inquiry is expected to report soon, and its findings will, I am sure, be considered carefully by the Government. We are all pleased that these steps are being taken and that there has been progress, but this has not yet led to closure. That is necessary for the survivors, and it is necessary for the survivors and their families to have the support and dignity that they deserve. It is incumbent on our generation to sort this out, and this is the place to do it.

Graeme Morrice: May I say from the outset how pleased I am that the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has secured a debate on an issue that has had profound and devastating consequences on the lives of at least two of my constituents and indeed thousands of individuals and families across the country?
	I hope that through my contribution I will be able to give a voice to my constituents who have been affected by contaminated blood and who, up until now, have had no answers to what is considered to be one of the worst tragedies in modern health care. The experiences of my constituents echo many of the findings in the APPG report, particularly in terms of the inadequacy of the support available and the difficulties encountered when applying for entitlements from the Skipton Fund. I want to take this opportunity to praise the work of the APPG for haemophilia and contaminated blood.
	I was deeply saddened to hear of the plight of two of my constituents who received contaminated blood during the 1980s.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend will be aware that some of us who have sought for many years to get legislation through the House but have not yet achieved it feel that whoever wins the next election should make sure that time is available for this. Does he agree with that objective?

Graeme Morrice: Yes, I certainly concur with my right hon. Friend and commend him for his work in this field.
	My constituent Mr Billy Cannon of West Calder suffered from a burst ulcer in 1986, which meant he required two blood transfusions. Mr Cannon was fine after the operation and recovered. However, it was not until August 2010, some 24 years later, when he was diagnosed with advanced liver cancer that he discovered he had hepatitis C. Sadly, after a brave battle, Billy Cannon, aged 57, passed away in February 2013. The loss of Billy, understandably, has been devastating for the Cannon family and I wish to take this opportunity to pass on my sincere condolences to Linda, Billy’s wife, who has shown great courage in the face of a very difficult set of circumstances.
	It is the circumstances around Mr Cannon’s death that are so hard to accept because there have been no answers, no apology and no acknowledgement that mistakes were made that led to his untimely death.
	His wife recognises that apportioning blame will not bring back her beloved husband. Nevertheless, the death of Billy has had such profound consequences for many different aspects of her life and leaves so many questions unanswered.
	Like Billy Cannon, another constituent, Vera Gaskin of Livingston, also contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, may recall that I raised her circumstances with the Prime Minister in the House a few years back. Mrs Gaskin received a blood transfusion during her treatment for cancer in 1985. Fortunately, Vera recovered from the cancer. However, later in 1996 when she began to feel unwell, it was revealed that she too had hepatitis C. Again, no explanation was given to Mrs Gaskin of how she had been infected with contaminated blood.
	What is evident in the case of both of my constituents is the lack of information on the circumstances surrounding the passing of hepatitis C through contaminated blood. It is for this very reason that it is so important that there is a review of the events and decisions that led to the tragedy.
	Luckily, Mrs Gaskin was in the early stages of the virus when she was first diagnosed and could therefore receive treatment. Nevertheless, living with hepatitis C has been particularly difficult for her and has impacted on all aspects of her life and that of her husband and family. The stigma alone of having hepatitis C has been mentally draining for Mrs Gaskin and her quality of life has been greatly reduced. The hepatitis C has denied her many opportunities and brought many difficulties.
	What makes Vera Gaskin’s story even more upsetting is that she has not only had to come to terms with the devastation of her diagnosis, but has also had to deal with an inadequate support system, further adding to her distress. Her view of the Skipton Fund, set up to help those affected by the tragedy, is:
	“It is not fit for purpose, does not serve the victim and is causing more harm than good”.
	I believe that this speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the support arrangements put in place following the tragedy.
	I recognise that some improvements have been made to the support and compensation available to those affected, but changes are still clearly required in two areas: first, in the criteria used to determine entitlement for payment from the Skipton Fund, and, secondly, in the amount of financial support available. Despite having the medical proof that she had cirrhosis—the medical criteria required in order to receive further compensation—Mrs Gaskin was denied her stage two payment from the Skipton Fund.
	She is not alone in encountering such difficulties. The APPG report revealed that 16% of all claims considered by Skipton have been deferred or rejected, many on the basis of insufficient proof. It was not until after a year-long battle that Mrs Gaskin’s application to receive her second stage payment was approved. What is evident from my constituent’s experience is that the criteria used by the Skipton Fund are too strict and only make it more difficult for victims to receive funds that they are perfectly entitled to. In response, I would urge the Government to take action to improve the system of allocating funds and to review the criteria, making it easier for those affected to provide proof.
	The second important issue about the support arrangements is the amount of compensation available. Although no amount of money will be able to take away the pain experienced on a daily basis by those affected, it is clear that the amount of compensation available is simply not enough. Many individuals living with hep C continue to experience hardship and financial difficulties, despite the existence of Government-established funds, which is why I would urge the Government to reconsider the amount available with a view to increasing it so that individuals can maintain a good quality of life.
	In conclusion, I am sure all Members would agree that what my constituents and others across the country went through is tragic and cannot be undone. That said, I am hopeful that a positive outcome can be reached in the form of a review of the circumstances and the support arrangements available—for the sake of those who are sadly no longer with us and for the sake of those who continue to suffer. The all-party group report makes some important recommendations, to which I hope the Government will respond carefully and positively. I strongly support the report’s recommendations, particularly the calls for a public apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of successive Governments. I hope that, following this debate and, most importantly, following the publication of the Penrose inquiry, some form of justice will be delivered for each and every individual and family across the country who continue to have to deal with the consequences of this awful tragedy.

Chloe Smith: I have attended today’s debate for three reasons. First, I know of two constituents who have suffered from the contaminated blood scandal. Secondly, the Backbench Business Committee is doing good by returning to the subject of one of its earliest debates in 2010, so we can take this as a test of what sort of progress can and should be made during a Parliament. Thirdly and most seriously, I share the view of many in the Chamber that this issue is a national disgrace and a national tragedy. The victims have suffered long enough. I endorse the calls in the comprehensive inquiry by the APPG and I thank the various hon. Members who contributed to it. I also endorse its view that a public inquiry is necessary to establish culpability.
	I shall use this time to tell the story of my constituents, and much of what I say will be direct quotations from them. They asked me to attend this debate, to speak for them and to support their interests. One in particular thanked me for such forms of support, saying:
	“You have no idea how importantly we, in this contaminated blood community, who are very sick and ill, hold them.”
	She wanted to make sure that we know that
	“they are ill and exhausted and do not want to be constantly fighting and campaigning.”
	Anne had an operation in 1974 that required three pints of blood. She knew by 2001 that she had been infected with hepatitis C, and she is now a stage 2 Skipton Fund recipient. She has suffered decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, cancer, osteoporosis with weak teeth and a compression fracture of the spine, portal hypertension and oesophageal bleeding for which, she says,
	“the procedures had recently are no cure, they simply stop the likelihood of my bleeding to death from the mouth and will return.”
	She has splenomegaly, with her spleen twice the size it should be; in her words,
	“it…‘eats’ platelets, red blood cells and immune giving chemicals.”
	She has extreme fatigue and often describes her inability do anything more than be in bed all day, which is very hard when the treating hospital is several hours’ travel away. She has had four rounds of interferon injections—a drug that she says is “like chemo”—and pills that
	“kill all your cells good and bad”.
	Anne has most recently had a liver transplant, for which her consultant cheered her up with three things to worry about: No. 1, dying on the list to get the transplant; No. 2, not surviving the 10-hour operation; and No. 3, rejecting the new liver. She has had a drug regime that has helped to remove the virus. Indeed, when I spoke to her since the transplant, she sounded like a new woman, even when she almost cheerily told me:
	“I still have cancer, but the Hep C has gone!”
	Anne has been concerned about funeral payments so that her family do not need to worry. She explains the daily humiliation of waiting until last in a doctor’s or dentist’s surgery because she is infectious; she says she is being “treated like a leper”. She describes the
	“stigma of cirrhosis and a disease associated with drugs”.
	Anne would like priority support for survivors, although the majority will already be dead. In particular, she wants access to liver transplants and access to new drugs. She would like a national strategy for GPs to understand better the complexity of hepatitis C infection. She would also like better advocacy, because so many people affected are not in a position to speak for themselves.

Peter Bottomley: A point put to me is how infuriating and occasionally humiliating it is when, on meeting a new clinician, someone has to go through their whole life history, explaining that they do not drink too much and so forth. There should be some way of flagging up the fact that these people do not need to be asked ordinary clerking questions when their condition is perfectly plain.

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It speaks directly about an issue I am coming on to. Anne has told me that she faced that problem, along with others such as getting a benefits processing centre to understand how the Skipton Fund works and the fact that she and others like her are fatally ill. She would like to see the “passporting” of prescriptions, which connects with what my hon. Friend just said.
	My second constituent is a haemophiliac, and he was infected with hepatitis C in 1978 from an operation on arthritis. He realised the result in the 1990s. I am sorry to say that he had been part of Skipton stage 1 until last year, but he was then diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, which he had feared for many years. He, too, has been treated with interferon, a “truly awful drug”, and he is hoping for a new generation of drugs in a couple of years’ time.
	My constituent has lived in fear of his disease worsening and of passing it on inadvertently to his wife and children. At first, he was told
	“not to worry, as Hep C was like flu”.
	He explained:
	“Later they said that was wrong and it would probably kill him one day—unless…something else got him first.”
	He told me:
	“It’s funny how as you clock on a bit you get told you don’t need to worry as something else will kill you first. One does begin to fear this thing that’s going to get you first!”
	He has been angered by the distinction drawn between stages 1 and 2 of hepatitis C in the lingo of the fund. The APPG’s report backs his view, and indeed my other constituent, Anne, agrees in the sense that many sufferers sadly progress from stage 1 to stage 2.
	My second constituent would like three things: a full judicial inquiry; improved administration by the Skipton Fund; and better compensation, which he believes to be poor for the death and suffering caused in comparison with payments that other victims of other tragedies have received. He is hugely cynical that any Government will do something about this “hidden scandal”, which, as he calmly says,
	“is a great pity for an awful lot of people.”
	Let me come to my own views. I think the APPG’s report is a strong piece of work which holds many sensible recommendations that I would back. As I said, I would back the holding of a public inquiry, as this is one of the last remaining great scandals for which culpability ought to be clear, acknowledged and apologised for. I back the motion and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and all the others who have made today possible.
	I add one comparison drawn from Anne’s comments, and this speaks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) challenged me on.

Peter Bottomley: I did not challenge; I added.

Chloe Smith: Added, quite right.
	We honour our military with a covenant. For the sacrifices they make for us— facing danger, injury and death—we give our respect, our support and fair treatment. We acknowledge a moral obligation. This Government should be congratulated on aiming to ensure that no disadvantage is suffered in gaining public services, and they acknowledge that there can be a case for special treatment in certain cases.
	In no way do I try to cheapen either of those situations—the need for a military covenant or the needs of the people whom we are talking about today—but it is clear to me as a constituency MP that my constituent Anne seeks much the same as the sort of help that I have tried to get for veterans: doctors to act on the wider effects of their illness; getting the benefits system to see what they are suffering; and getting public services in general to join the dots of what they know.
	I know it is controversial in the military covenant to emphasise preferential treatment, but in the case of Anne, who has wanted drugs and a new liver against the might of the NICE guidelines, when her appalling,
	sapping illness was no fault of her own, I think that she, too, and many like her, should receive respect, support and fair treatment. I see a moral obligation and every moral argument for doing as she asks. Perhaps the Government might consider having a covenant for contaminated blood.

George Howarth: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the typically thoughtful and sensitive way in which he introduced and framed the debate. I think we are all grateful to him for that. I also thank the all-party group, co-chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for its important work and for what I consider to be a very important report.
	Once in every generation, a handful of issues arise that I tend to describe as debts of honour. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Hillsborough, I could mention the thalidomide scandal, and I am sure that other examples have already been given or will be given during the debate. I shall give two examples from my constituency, which, I think, underline the fact that this is a debt of honour that needs to be addressed.
	My first example concerns a lady called Mrs Phoenix. In 1980, Mrs Phoenix had an operation on her jaw at Broadgreen hospital in Liverpool, during which she received contaminated blood. In 1995—15 years later—she was diagnosed with hepatitis C, after which she began a course of interferon that lasted for approximately a year. That failed to eradicate the virus. In 2003-04, she began a further course of interferon, and, thankfully, this time the virus was eradicated.
	In subsequent years, Mrs Phoenix was told repeatedly that she was not entitled to claim compensation for the hepatitis C that she had contracted from contaminated blood, because the medical professionals had not been aware at the time that the disease was being transmitted from person to person through blood transfusions. In 2011 her solicitor told her about the Skipton Fund, but when she tried to complete the relevant forms in order to submit a claim to the fund, she was told that the details of her NHS operation had gone missing. That is a not unfamiliar story. Luckily, she was able to carry out the necessary research and appeal against the decision, and her appeal was successful.
	This is what Mrs Phoenix has asked me to tell the House:
	“As far back as the 1950s some US doctors were raising concerns about paid blood donations from so called ‘skid row’ donors. I feel health officials here cannot cloud the issue by claiming ignorance of risks buying in blood from the USA. Personally I do not want to rely on charity, I don’t want tweaks to the current system, I would like a full and final settlement. This has been called the worst treatment disaster in the NHS; warnings were ignored and I feel gross maladministration is to blame.”
	Mrs Phoenix has made three requests. First, she wants the Department of Health to acknowledge that purchasing blood products from the United States, including blood products from inside the US prison system, without testing them was negligent. Secondly, she seeks what many others have called for—an apology—and thirdly, she seeks adequate financial compensation.

Richard Bacon: I have listened to many of these stories with growing anger. Constituents of mine have also been affected. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Governments of both parties have failed our constituents for many years, and that the House will have no patience with any Government of any party who do not produce a final resolution of these matters?

George Howarth: In a word, yes.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the risks must have been known. Is he aware that the move to set up a compensation scheme in the Irish Republic was made before full state liability was recognised? That liability was recognised only when a second inquiry showed that the state had known there was a risk, but had continued to use contaminated blood products on the basis that, because the United Kingdom and others were using them, it could carry the risk.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which I fully accept.
	My second example comes from a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous. Her husband, who was a haemophiliac, died at the age of 59 after contracting hepatitis A, B and C through contaminated blood administered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result of receiving that contaminated blood, he had developed cirrhosis of the liver, oesophageal varices, ascites, encephalopathy and liver cancer. Understandably, my constituent says, his quality of life deteriorated year by year and month by month until his eventual and sad death. His haemophilia had prevented him from accessing insurance products such as mortgage protection, and the early retirement necessitated by his ill health had decimated his pension, which had left both him and his wife struggling financially.
	My constituent had close family members who also died as a result of receiving contaminated blood. The family has been hit hard by a terrible scandal. Twenty years after the death of her husband, my constituent is still campaigning for justice. The family has been given no explanation of why the scandal was allowed to happen, and why the medical records went missing at local hospitals and in the NHS.
	My constituent is now 76 years old, and is herself in ill health. She is looking for answers to a number of questions that are still arising, and she hopes to receive those answers in her lifetime and as soon as possible. The family sent me the following statement, which they asked me to read out:
	“My family holds that what has long been needed is for this tragedy, which has already directly claimed the lives of 2,000 haemophiliacs”
	to be addressed and put into perspective, in terms of its “scale” and in terms of “financial support”. The statement continues:
	“We believe that this disaster…is finally seen as one event…the ‘UK Contaminated Blood Scandal’….the scandal is already Britain and Ireland’s 15th biggest peacetime disaster in terms of death toll, since records began, yet very few people know about it…the UK Contaminated Blood Scandal claimed the third biggest collective peacetime death toll in the UK in the 20th Century. My family believes that until this tragedy is finally seen in the proper terms of
	its fatalities, and is recorded as such…very few people outside of those whose lives have been obliterated will ever be able to grasp the enormity of a scandal”.
	The family make two specific requests. First, they call for the current support groups to be disbanded and a new, comprehensive method of support to be introduced to replace the support schemes that are currently available, which they consider to be confusing and unfit for purpose. Secondly, they call for substantial, regular financial support that will meet the care needs of those affected.
	I began my speech by saying that this was a debt of honour. I end it by saying that it is a debt of honour that should now be redeemed in full.

Edward Leigh: I echo the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) in describing this as a debt of honour. That, I think, sums up what the debate is all about. We caused this. We did not cause it personally, of course, but it was caused by the state and the national health service, so we are responsible.
	I congratulate all Members who have spoken—particularly, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has campaigned so effectively. I also pay tribute to my late friend Jim Dobbin. As has already been mentioned, his memorial service took place yesterday, and, in paying tribute to him, the Bishop of Southwark described him as an MP of causes. I know the House of Commons and politicians are often criticised, perhaps quite rightly, but I think this debate shows the House of Commons at its best. There are many MPs, like Jim, who do not necessarily see their political life as one of holding high office but who realise we are here to try to promote causes, particularly as, because of our constituency system, when we speak here we often do so because our constituents have approached us. In other political systems Members of national Parliaments are perhaps more remote.
	One national politician who is not remote is the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). We are all very grateful that he is here today given his other responsibilities, and I am working with him on another issue where people’s lives have been ruined through no fault of their own. We value his presence here today.
	I have said that many of us are here today because of constituents, and I am here because of my constituent Gary Jones from Scotter, who has raised this issue with me several times. I want to share some of his thoughts with the House. First, however, may I make an apology: I am on the Panel of Chairs and quite soon I will have to go and chair a private Bill, so I may miss the winding-up speeches?
	As I have said, I want to talk about the issues Gary Jones has raised and, in particular the Irish compensation scheme. Before doing so, however, I want to echo and emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said in an intervention as it makes the point very clearly. I have already said this once and I will say it again, and it will be said several times during this debate: let right be done.
	We caused this, and we have to put it right. The state—or the establishment—is responsible. I do not know who is really responsible—probably no particular individual; no doubt everybody was trying their best—but there has been gross negligence over several decades, since perhaps as early as the 1940s when the viral risks associated with the blood products in question were known and patients were not informed. One of the greatest scandals in all this is that so many patients have been kept in the dark.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend said that this was an example of gross negligence by the state. In addition to what the Penrose inquiry will show that is specific to the contaminated blood issue, does he agree this is also an opportunity for us to set some guidelines and rules for those occasions when there are failures by the state health service on how it will deal with compensation so that we avoid a patchwork of problems similar to those that affected our constituents?

Edward Leigh: I entirely agree, and I do not think this is just a question of money. If we attack the Government just in terms of money, we might not succeed in this campaign. It is also a question of learning lessons, and what the victims want above all is some sense of involvement in future schemes. We must learn lessons, and I am sure we are doing so.
	The screening of blood donors was totally inadequate, allowing those with a history of jaundice to donate. Even in response to the rise of AIDS the Government failed to implement the best technology available at the time to render blood products safe. The results of this neglect have been appalling: the infection of over 5,000 haemophiliacs with hepatitis B and C, over 1,000 of whom were also infected with HIV from NHS blood products, resulting in 2,500 deaths. Although there has been compensation in many cases, it has been inadequate—indeed, they would claim it has been miserly. For instance, although there is a one-off payment available for hepatitis stage one, there is no ongoing payment. All this is plainly unacceptable; I think everybody who has spoken agrees with that. It is also obvious that there must be a suitable scheme for compensation to the victims—not that any monetary amount can repair the damage that has been done.
	The Irish scheme has perhaps not received as much attention as it should have done in this debate so far, and again I am quoting here from the arguments given to me by my constituent. It is not, as I am afraid some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have suggested, that we want to link the UK compensation payment scheme to that which exists in Ireland. It is worth repeating that campaigners have never expressed a wish to place the Government’s funding of any compensation scheme in Irish hands. For myself, I do not suggest that the compensation should be exactly the same, but the Irish scheme is worth looking at in terms of compassion: it puts compassion first; it accepts liability; and it is substantial enough for the victims to gain closure. So I encourage Ministers to look further into the compensation scheme the Republic of Ireland has established and to see what lessons might be applicable to us here in the UK.

Jennifer Willott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because we are talking about quite a small number of people, fairly generous packages of compensation would be affordable? We are not looking at millions of people; we are looking at a small number of people who have suffered very seriously as a result of the NHS.

Edward Leigh: Yes, I want to deal with that point, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has made that intervention. I can quite understand where the Government are coming from, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and I—and others who have spoken—cannot ever be accused of wanting to waste public money. We are very aware of the pressures on Government. Again I am grateful to my constituent for some of the figures that have been given to me. He says—and I hope the Minister will reply to this point—that:
	“The figures quoted in the Written Ministerial Statement are completely incorrect. The Government have refuted suggestions that they based their calculations on a typographical error in the Archer Report and claim that the costings were based on an average of £750,000 per person. The CEO of the Irish Haemophilia Society has confirmed that the average figures paid out in Ireland was ‘around €350,000’ per person.”
	So the total figure we are talking about here is £1.5 billion. That is very similar to the compensation paid to the victims of Equitable Life. I have campaigned on Equitable Life, as we all have, and it is pretty awful for someone to lose their life savings and there was appalling suffering, but at the end of the day they have lost their savings; they have not lost their life. So if we are prepared to pay this sort of compensation to the victims of Equitable Life, why do we baulk at similar figures for those whose whole lives have been ruined, and ultimately many of them lost?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) put it very well:
	“I recently met a delegation of people who had suffered through the Equitable Life disaster. Although I have every sympathy with their plight, today’s debate puts that matter into perspective because we are talking not about the loss of life savings, but about the loss of life itself, loss of livelihood and of the chance to grow old, and losing the chance to become a parent and see one’s children grow up.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 556-7.]
	I could not put it any better, and I end on the following point. We recognise that we are at fault. We recognise that these people’s lives have been ruined. We recognise that the current compensation scheme has not fulfilled their expectations and is not fair. Let right be done.

Mike Kane: I stand in this House in the footsteps of giants. My predecessor Paul Goggins was a tireless campaigner on this issue, and his predecessor, Lord Morris of Manchester and former Member for Wythenshawe, was also a tireless campaigner on it, so I am humbled to stand before the House as their successor.
	I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing the debate and congratulate him on his work. There are days in this Chamber, particularly as we approach a general election with the cut and thrust of politics, when I do not know what we do here. Today is not one of those
	days. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) summed it up correctly: this debate shows the House of Commons at its best.
	I want to relate the tale of a few constituents of mine: Fred and Eleanor Bates and Peter Mossman. I have been working with them over the few months that I have been a Member of Parliament and we have had the full support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), for which we are grateful. Eleanor is now 60 years old. She has been married to Fred for 38 years. Fred is a haemophiliac who used to have a 5% clotting factor but now has a 0.0001% clotting factor. It is believed that this reduction is a result of the contamination. Before 1982-83, he received plasma and cryoprecipitate on demand when he had a bleed. After that, he was switched to factor VIII. In 1991, he was visited by another constituent of mine, Peter Mossman of the north-west group of the Haemophilia Society, who brought Fred a leaflet about hepatitis C. Fred visited the hospital to check this out and discovered that he did indeed have the condition. In fact, the hospital had known about his condition for almost a decade. Frightened and worried, Fred and Eleanor researched the main symptoms of hepatitis C: fatigue, sclerosis of the liver, liver cancer and ultimately death. They believe that the disease is now having an impact on Fred’s short-term memory function.
	Fred worked as a weigher at C. H. Johnson on Bradnor road on the Sharston industrial estate in my constituency. In 1980, he was given a choice by his consultant: he could carry on working and face possible death within a year or retire and live longer. Fred was 31 years of age when he faced that choice. The choice was made more complicated by the fact that he and Eleanor were raising two small children. His income went from a respectable £145 a week to £45 in state benefit.
	With hardly any clotting agent left, Fred now receives prophylactic treatment every other day, in the form of 1,500 units of factor VIII. It is not just the victims of this injustice that suffer; it is often their carers as well. Eleanor was unable to return to work after the kids fled the nest, because hepatitis C is an unpredictable disease. Fred can be fine at 8 am but have a bleed half an hour later and have to go back to bed. Eleanor has to dress his wounds, as well as doing the cooking and cleaning. She has felt unemployable for a numbers of years because of her home care duties.
	Fred and Eleanor now have to deal with the Caxton Foundation. May I make this promise to the House? If I am ever fortunate enough to stand at either of those Dispatch Boxes, I will never hide behind the fact that we have set up a third-party organisation to pass the buck to. We should accept responsibility here in this House; this is where the buck should stop. Eleanor has described the Caxton Foundation to me as a sheer and utter waste of time; she feels as though she is begging when claiming. The system does not allow a retrospective claim. She put in for a respite holiday, but it did not come through, so she missed her holiday slot. Other issues have been identified. There are no separate forms for carers to apply for their own grants, and winter fuel payments are counted as income. The stress has ruined the lives of many carers of those who suffer from this condition.
	I want to talk about some of the organisers. I mentioned Peter Mossman earlier. He is 71 years old, and he has a 5% clotting factor. He was a woodcutter, a machinist
	and a professional driver with Goodwin’s coaches in Manchester. Like Fred, he too faced the choice between giving up work and carrying on. He gave up work when he was 42. He has searched high and low for answers on the disease. His kids have only ever known him fighting. Working with Alf Morris, he set up the Manor House support group, and I pay tribute to him and Alf for that. He lost his sister, Margaret, recently. She was an affected carrier, and she died at the age of 63, her liver ravaged.
	These campaigners believe that there should be no differentiation between stages 1 and 2 when it comes to payments. As has been mentioned, we are one of the few countries not to have adequately compensated the victims. There should be a decent one-off payment with subsequent annual payments.

Richard Fuller: A constituent of mine has also raised this point. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it odd that, as a result of this failure by the Government, the victims have to apply for a discretionary payment and that there is no substantial up-front payment? There seems to be a complete imbalance between right and wrong.

Mike Kane: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	Many of the victims have lost the will to fight. There should be greater anger there, but they cannot deal with that anger and fight at the same time. Fred, Eleanor and Peter tell me that they will fight until they die. They have seen their stock of affected friends die horribly, and they feel that that is all they have to look forward too. They believe that it is time to admit that we made a mistake, and to allow those people to get on with their lives. Hope is real. There is no such thing as false hope. There might be false science, and there might have been false starts, but hope is real for those people. We in this Chamber today should help them to reignite that hope.

Anne Main: Today’s debate has been very well informed, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for bringing it to the House. This is about justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. Justice that has been delayed for such a long time is really no justice at all.
	It has been noted that we are coming up to the general election, and I know that the NHS will be on the front of many of our leaflets. Our political literature will talk about the NHS and what it means to us and to our families, and about our hopes for it and the amount of money that we hope to spend on it. I do not want contaminated blood to be a subject of debate only for today.
	This is about the trust that we and our families put in the NHS, but that trust was broken many years ago for many families, including one that I want to talk about today. It is important to recognise that we expect the NHS to give us the best medical treatment and advice available at the time. Many Members have pointed out that that advice was often ignored or pushed under the carpet; it was covered up even though it was known about. That is simply not good enough.
	This tragedy has affected multiple members of many families. It has affected the quality of people’s lives and their aspirations over many years. People have described the situation to me as being forced by the state to join a club of whose existence they were unaware with rules that they did not understand, and being denied the ability to call it to account. People, including children, were unaware that they were being subjected—that is the right word—to treatment that was not in their best interests or appropriate for their condition. That failure by the state has been left to fester for too long, and it has left them with a legacy that is a disgrace and a stain on this House and on the NHS. Whoever is in the next Government, if they have used the term “NHS” on their leaflets, they must bear in mind that this debate today has joined the House in saying that we want better for those families.
	I concur with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said about reading out 1,800 names. In fact, we could read out the names of all the family members and carers involved. They are all victims; they have all lost a huge amount. We should not read out all those names, however, because many people do not want their names linked to the debate and made public. I am going to talk about my constituent, Nicola Enstone Jones. I asked her permission to use her name today, because I know that many people do not wish to have the stigma of being associated with all this, and with having to go cap in hand to get their rights recognised. I should like to give the House a flavour of some of the hardships that Nicola’s family have had to endure, and of the unfairness of a system that has no transparency.
	Like many other Members, I have campaigned for Equitable Life victims. We have had many strong debates in the House about whether people’s estates should be included when the compensation payments were being made and about coming up with fair formulas. I have not heard the same zeal applied to this subject, although this is about people losing their lives, not their livelihoods. This is about people losing their hopes and dreams—just as the Equitable Life people did—but often losing them at a very young age.
	I want to give Nicola’s story a brief airing today. It mirrors many of the stories that we have heard today, and it is important that we record as many of them as possible, because they show the unfairness, the anomalies and the degree to which families have to scrape to get a degree of justice. We have heard mention of very young children being affected, and Nicola was diagnosed with haemophilia at the age of seven or eight. In 1978 and 1979, she had tooth extractions—not exactly a hazardous thing—and treatment for a broken arm. In 1980, after a tonsillectomy, this young child was given factor VIII. It was by then known to be contaminated. Since that very day, her health has deteriorated, with symptoms associated with hepatitis C. Despite her mother’s concerns, she was told at the time that her daughter’s problems were psychological. Things were covered up. Throughout the years she continued to receive factor VIII for other operations and her health was always poor.
	Over the years Nicola has lobbied me, as other hon. Members have been lobbied. When the Skipton Fund was announced, she was told that she could apply, but
	because in 1997 a consultant had stated that the virus had cleared, 17 years after she had been infected, she suddenly did not seem to meet the criteria. She has been turned down “on the balance of probabilities” by the Skipton Fund because her condition had been cleared for six months. Her mother, Mrs Enstone Jones, lived with that all those years, but because of a brief period when the virus was thought to have cleared, Nicola did not meet the criteria. She has been let down by the Skipton fund.
	The report which has been mentioned so many times in the Chamber today stressed that the fund—the “third arm”, as I think it was called by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whose predecessor, Paul Goggins, worked tirelessly on the issue—is creating a barrier to justice, not facilitating justice. We must have a better system so that people do not feel that they have to jump through hoops, justify themselves, or make early applications in order to be able to go on holiday or get essential funding. The funds set up to deal with the issue are not dealing with it and, if anything, are trying to avoid dealing with it if they can and keep money back.
	We do not wish to save the state money because, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) said, we are speaking about a relatively small number of people. Let us get the matter sorted. Let us put in place a fair system. Let us make sure that all the other Enstone Joneses and all the other names that we cannot mention today for reasons of privacy do not feel that they have somebody acting against them, instead of acting for them. If nothing else comes of the debate in the House today, we should remember not just the NHS, but what the NHS means to those affected and their families. They trusted their health to the NHS many years ago, and the issue is as relevant today as it was then. Any of us who campaigns on the NHS in a few months’ time should remember that and pledge to do something about it if they are part of the next Government.

Tom Clarke: I apologise for my cold, but I promised my constituent, John Prior from Moodiesburn, this morning that I would seek to put on record a very controversial letter—some would say a lengthy letter—which he sent to me and which I thought I should share with the House.
	Before doing that, I congratulate the all-party group on its comprehensive report and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the way in which he introduced the debate and on the work that he is doing. I welcome the other speeches that we have heard, including the one from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
	I turn to the letter from my constituent, a voice that I think should be heard. John Prior said this:
	“I was told aged 20 in 1994 that I had chronic hepatitis C by my haemophilia consultant at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. I had been given contaminated blood as a child at Yorkhill children’s hospital in Glasgow.
	The blood was donated from pooled donations of thousands of donors including prisoners in US jails. The haemophilia doctor told me I would eventually need a liver transplant but did not know when. He said it could be 3 months, 3 years or 30 years.
	I was in complete shock, myself and my family thought I had AIDS. It’s been like living on death row not knowing when I would need a liver transplant.
	To my horror, my GP wrote to my employer and told them I had hepatitis C and did not expect me to work for more than 7 years due to my infection. The letter was dated one year before I was told I had hepatitis C, so my work knew about my infection before myself.
	As an adult I kept my hepatitis C status to myself and close friends and family. I never told my colleagues. I only told one of my bosses as I was struggling in work, I couldn’t concentrate and kept nodding off at my desk. He’s been very supportive and lets me do menial jobs that don’t require much thought. My sick record at work is horrendous and I’m lucky to still have a job.
	Relationships were virtually impossible for me as I felt worthless and frightened I would infect someone. I could not get a mortgage, and life insurance and travel insurance are prohibitive.
	My treatment at one stage was 20 tablets a day and 2 injections a week into my stomach which I did myself for 6 months. It was a horrific experience and I felt I just wanted to die. At one point the nurse took blood from me for part of a study into why people with hepatitis C are dying at different rates. She told me she was surprised I was not taking anti-depressants.
	My liver consultant applied to Skipton for the stage 2 payment but my application was rejected because I had not reached the ‘crisis’ point. How can a charity ignore the recommendations of a liver consultant? My experience with Caxton was just as bad. It would take numerous emails and phone calls to get in contact with them. I felt like I was begging the way, they treated me, they insisted I provide a letter from my consultant to confirm I was on treatment. It was I who had to run around seriously ill arranging everything for Caxton. I will never contact Caxton again. These charities are not fit for purpose”.
	My constituent goes on to make other comments which I think it best not to repeat. His letter goes on to say:
	“Over 80% of victims do not receive any ongoing financial help from Skipton yet we are ill.”
	He concludes:
	“After all that’s happened to myself I will have to be reassessed by the DWP for my entitlement to DLA which I use for my Motability car. I was originally awarded DLA for life 24 years ago. I am worried sick that I will lose my car as I need it to get me to work/hospital appointments. Does my Government expect me to take infected dirty syringes onto a bus? My health will only deteriorate. There is no cure for severe haemophilia. Government policy gave me hepatitis C yet they want to reassess me for DLA.”
	That took some time, but I do not apologise. It is right that people who have had such experience should have their voices heard.
	I referred earlier to legislation. So complex are the issues and so long have they gone on that legislation is necessary. I attempted to carry through this House the Alf Morris Bill which had made its way through the House of Lords. Unfortunately, we ran out of time. In March last year I succeeded in introducing a ten-minute rule Bill, which went a little further than the report. For example, it included the need for an NHS compensation card, which would lead to priority treatment. Following that, I had a meeting with the then Leader of the House, where it was made clear to me that time would not be made available. I am not sure that he shared the sense of urgency that I tried to impart.
	I believe profoundly that an apology, important though it is, is not enough. Compensation is appropriate. There ought to be closer working between the DWP and the NHS. We have many lessons to learn from Ireland and elsewhere. I acknowledge those who have worked so
	very hard on this issue, especially Lord Morris, whom we remember with great affection today. We owe it to them to deliver.

Fiona Bruce: In supporting this motion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing this important debate. I praise him and the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood for leading their campaigns to ensure that those infected by contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s, and their families, receive the support and justice they deserve. It is justice for which they have waited far too long. We often hear in this House the statement, “Justice delayed is justice denied”, but it is rarely so apt as in this case.
	Like many Members here today, I was first alerted to this terrible situation by a constituent. My constituent’s father had been jointly infected by hepatitis C and HIV via contaminated blood products. My constituent told me:
	“My father lost his battle with these joint diseases on the 17 January 2000, after 19 years of suffering…His story is a long one with distressing details.”
	I do not propose to go into those details, but I will say that it is a heartbreaking, twisted tragedy that my constituent’s father could go to hospital to receive treatment to help with haemophilia and yet it would be that very treatment that would kill him, having caused him 19 years of suffering. It is a tragedy for that man and for his whole family, one similarly suffered by nearly 5,000 people in 5,000 families, so many of them going to our own national health service hospitals to be treated but receiving what would turn out to be lethal injections.
	If proper support and a proper inquiry had been provided in 2000, it would, even then, have been tragically too late for my constituent’s father. This Saturday will mark 15 years since he passed away, and here we are still—in 2015—with no proper inquiry, unsatisfactory support for survivors, unsatisfactory support for families, inadequate compensation provision and, not least, no apology. Not only is this tragedy heartbreaking, but it is a double tragedy and a double scandal. The first is that anyone—let alone 5,000 people—was infected through contaminated blood. The second is that decades later— 24 years after my constituent’s father was contaminated and 15 years after his death—we find that my constituent and his family, and so many others like them, still have received no satisfactory response or justice. That must change. It is nothing less than appalling that successive Governments have failed to address this issue: a situation caused by a failure in our NHS provision.
	My constituent’s letter continued by saying that
	“it is the survivors and the widows who most need help now, and those who have died need a voice. The largest tragedy of this is that unlike other countries, there has never been a public inquiry.”
	As a member of the Select Committee on International Development, it is my privilege to travel the world, and wherever I go I hear people admiring the high standards of our country’s justice system, rule of law and provision of access to justice. This country is respected globally for those things, yet it is a terrible stain on our reputation, of which we should feel ashamed and embarrassed, that we have failed as a nation, by such a long way and over
	such a long time, to adhere to those high standards of justice expected by our constituents, and which they deserve.
	What now needs to be done is clear, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the all-party group, who have identified the main priorities of those who suffered from these situations and their relatives. The priorities are reasonable, just, possible, necessary and, above all, urgent, because, as we have been reminded today, justice delayed is justice denied—indeed, it is no justice at all. Let us hope that today’s debate signals the beginning of the end of this terrible scandal. In closing, may I apologise for the fact that I may miss the wind-ups, because I am shortly hoping to speak in another debate?

Geoffrey Robinson: Like other Members, it is appropriate that I should pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who secured today’s debate, and, most of all, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has been responsible for getting the all-party group report out earlier this month. While we support and congratulate each other, we have to remember that the real victims in all this are those who have been infected and suffered this terrible disaster and tragedy, which has now been with us for more than 30 years. It is unique in one way, in that it is, alone in the health field, the fault of successive Governments. In no sense is this a party political debate, and the tone of today’s debate is a great credit to the Members who have taken part. It shows the growing awareness throughout the House and, I hope the civil service, too, of the seriousness of what took place all those years ago and the extent of our maladministration—let me put no finer point on it—in the handling of it since then.
	The wide geographical spread of constituencies represented today is a testimony to the impact that this issue has had throughout the country. It has been pleasing to see two new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who have clearly taken on the role of successor MPs in the campaigning sense to their predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has already spoken to great effect, and he follows in the footsteps of Lord Morris and Paul Goggins, both of whom campaigned with us very effectively. Sadly, however, we have not really been successful yet. One point I wish to make to the new Members in the House is that they should not think we are starting all over again, because we are really at the end of this campaign now and they will, I hope, see the—I was going to say fruits, but there are none to reap here—thing brought to some sort of satisfactory conclusion, after all this time.

Liz McInnes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and I wish to pay tribute to the tireless work of the late Jim Dobbin on this campaign. Let me add that I have been contacted by two constituents who praised the work that Jim had
	done and asked me specifically to attend this debate. They do not want their names to be made public, but they wanted me to be here and to take in what was said, and I will be meeting my constituents afterwards.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for that intervention. I was about to discuss Jim Dobbin, so my hon. Friend fortunately anticipates me. Jim was a good friend of mine for many years, and we had his memorial service yesterday, as she will know. He, alongside Peter Archer, Alf Morris and Paul Goggins, as well as others from the Government side of the House, was one of a series of outstanding campaigners that we have had on this issue. The fact that it is an all-party campaign enables us to get together to seek some resolution. This has been going on for an awfully long time and it has been very unsatisfactory, under all Governments. I must emphasise that all Governments are equally to blame, Labour and Tory Governments going back even to before Margaret Thatcher—I mention a name that will immediately resonate on both sides of the House.
	As has been said, some of those who have been terribly affected have not wanted their names to be mentioned. Among those affected has been one of my constituents, Mr Joseph Peaty, whom I visited in his home only a few weeks ago. I believe he is here watching today’s debate and I would like to read to the House two brief extracts from his most recent letter to me. I am pleased to say that he is now the chairman of the Tainted Blood group, one of the campaigning groups that have been very effective on this matter. He wrote to me just reviewing the 30 years he has been infected. The House will be interested to know that he is now 49 years old and was first infected when he was 16. He has lived all his life in my Coventry constituency. He wrote to me recently—I got the letter only yesterday—to say the following:
	“I miss being able to contribute to a productive career...Perhaps because of my age when I was first affected, my hopes and expectations, that were much like anyone else’s (education, home, partner, children, career, travel, ‘make a difference to the world’) were taken from me. I am now just a shadow of the potential I once held, struggling to exist let alone live a purposeful, fulfilling life, worrying what the next viral complication will be.”
	In his case there is a shadow overhanging him, after all these tragedies, and after the terrible suffering, pain and treatments that have had to be gone through; he faces the prospect, having been infected by both Hepatitis C and HIV and undergone all the treatments, that he could now have to deal with some transmutation into CDJ—mad cow disease. We just do not know. It is as bad as that.
	The tone of Joseph Peaty’s letter is much better than these extracts perhaps reveal. There is nothing self-pitying about Joseph Peaty. He is in every sense a man of immense dignity and tremendous forbearance in the face of suffering that was inflicted on him by the very organisation that was meant to be treating his ill health. He writes:
	“By supporting the haemophilia community in the pursuit of justice and financial recompense, I have learnt far more about the background to the introduction of pooled blood products than we were ever told prior to their administration. As a result I find the evidence overwhelming that the governments of the day knew of the infection risks, did not take adequate steps to mitigate onward transmission, failed to prevent non-consensual testing on patients, failed to inform patients of the risk, and put costs ahead
	of patient safety. The government were responsible for ensuring the safety of their citizens and failed disastrously in this primary duty.”
	That is a terrible indictment, but it is true; it is factual, undeniable and incontestable in every respect. Joseph there is referring to the entirety of his adult career since he was 16 years old. He lived in Coventry and that is sum total of what he can point to in his life.
	I do not wish to strike a discordant note when I mildly disagree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire—I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced it—about the need for more reports. We do not need the Penrose report as we have already had the Archer report. All sorts of investigations have proved beyond doubt that this is the Government’s responsibility, that the extent of the tragedy is tremendous and that the provision we have made so far has been inadequate. That is the end of the story. What we now need is a resolution.
	We are pleased that the Secretary of State attended the debate. Obviously, he is no longer in his place as he has other matters to which he needs to attend. I am also delighted to see my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State in his place. We are all aware that the Prime Minister, in a moment of generosity, said that he would try to resolve this matter by the end of the year. I fear that he will not be able to do so—we know the pressures that Governments work under—and that is a great pity. The one useful thing that the coalition Government could do is to settle issues such as this. Indeed, when I raised the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister when he was deputising for the Prime Minister at Question Time, he said that he would take on the matter personally. I thought that we would at last have a more productive encounter between the two in the name of the sufferers in this tragedy. I hope that such a meeting can take place. If it cannot, the next Administration, whatever form it takes—who knows what that will be—should take on the matter and settle it early. There will never be a good time. The only time is the earlier the better.

Sarah Newton: I am grateful to my colleagues inside and outside Parliament for working so effectively with the victims of blood contamination and raising these matters so effectively. Without their support, I would not be here—I would not have found out about this issue—so I am grateful to them. I also wish to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) while she was Health Minister. I know also that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), takes a great interest in this very important subject, and I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister has indicated that he now wants to take action. I am sure that the work of the Minister and the all-party group will be listened to very carefully by the Prime Minister as they come together to find out what further action can be taken.
	I will not go over all the salient points from the findings of the inquiries and the all-party group as they have already been discussed. One of the most important roles of a Member of Parliament, and one that I take very seriously, is to give a voice to the voiceless. In my brief contribution today, I want to do just that for one of my constituents. In a letter to me, she said:
	“I would be incredibly grateful if you had the opportunity to express my hurt and disappointment and help strengthen the case for better treatment of others. My name being spoken publicly terrifies me, especially as I in the past have been subject to such ill treatment by the NHS and the court system.”
	My constituent contracted hep C as a result of a blood transfusion shortly after giving birth to her son. Sadly, her hep C was not detected until 2004. She has received some help from the Skipton Fund. I do not have time to catalogue the sequence of poor treatment that she has received and her continuing fear for herself and her children. She says:
	“At this point in time, none of my three children has been checked for hep C. It is a bridge, they say, they don’t yet want to face. I worry…To try and quantify how this has affected my life would be near impossible. Perhaps with this inquiry, the Government will make sure that those affected have what’s left of their futures made easier.”
	Today, in this place, we must make sure we do that.

Andy Slaughter: In preparing for this debate, I looked at the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) sponsored at the beginning of this Parliament—in October 2010. I noticed that I, like a number of Members, said that action was needed more than contemplation. Since then, we have had many further debates. Indeed, we had a debate last week on hepatitis C in Westminster Hall, to which the Minister responded. We have had other such debates, the ongoing Penrose inquiry in Scotland, attempts to reform the existing arrangements and the very good report yesterday from the all-party group.
	Tributes have been paid to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his sterling efforts to work towards a final solution. I note also that there is further legal action. Today, a letter for action has gone to the Department of Health from three sufferers of hepatitis C through contaminated blood about the inequity of their treatment compared with those suffering from HIV. The issue is not that nothing has been going on, but how much further on we are after four and a half years. I think the answer is not that much. It is easy to say that that is no one’s fault or everybody’s fault, but we must take some responsibility here. It is the role of this House to hold the Government to account when they are not living up to their moral obligation, which they are not at present.
	Let me say one quick word about the existing arrangements. The report is good. It produces a lot of evidence for why the current schemes are not working, and we have heard individual criticisms of Macfarlane, Caxton and Skipton. Having read the report, my conclusion is that none of the trusts and funds is fit for purpose. If they are to continue while we await a final settlement, we must have root and branch reform and the funds must be resolved into one effective body. The politics is wrong. The funds purport to be independent bodies, but they appear to be too close to the Department of Health, meaning they have neither the benefits of independence nor the clout of accountability that should lie with the Department of Health. At the same time, they have become part of this degrading process where sufferers, who are largely reliant on benefits, are effectively begging for resources and often living in a state of penury.
	That is only one part of the ongoing situation, which includes Penrose. The same situation has happened in the past, where we have been waiting on a report for consideration. Both the final conclusion on a financial settlement and the clear identification of culpability and responsibility are awaiting an outcome. I am grateful to my constituent, Andrew March, for giving me a very thorough briefing for this debate. Off the top of his head, he set down 14 reasons why unfairness has been caused to sufferers. They include the failure to act by successive Governments, which meant that products were not banned early enough and contaminated products were not withdrawn; that haemophiliacs were tested for both HIV and hepatitis C without their consent and not informed of the result; that haemophiliac children were subjected to hepatitis in infectivity trials; that minors were informed of their status without their parents being told; and that individuals were told of their status either by letter through the post or in public places. I could go on. Those are disgraceful actions. We need closure and an inquiry that will bring those matters to light.
	I understand that we are to be told later today that the Penrose inquiry will report on 25 March. That is just before the purdah period and, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, leaves very little time for any conclusions based on those findings to be released before the election. That is deeply to be regretted, because whoever is in government after May will have many pressures on their time. I hope that this issue, if it is still not resolved by then, will not be lost. I would like to hear from both Front-Bench teams today that it will be a priority, whoever is in government, not to let the work that is done, if it is not resolved by then, fall foul of where we are.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the difficulty produced by Penrose’s not reporting much earlier. The APPG was hoping that when we produced our report the Penrose report would be available, and that we could then have the conclusion to the negotiations in Downing street. The delay from Penrose has been very frustrating.

Andy Slaughter: It has been. It is, I think, tragic that we may go into another Parliament without a solution to these issues. If I had to say one thing, it would be this. Yes, we do need a public inquiry. We do need to identify responsibility and culpability. We do need to have the fullest apology based on the clearest evidence of what has gone wrong. We do need to make sure that interim and existing arrangements work properly, and we do need transparency. But, above all, I think we need compensation, and that cannot be delayed, perhaps for years, while all those processes are worked through.
	I will, if I may, read a short statement from Andrew March, who will be familiar to many campaigners on this issue. He was the applicant in the judicial review case. He has studiously and devotedly pursued these matters for many years. He says:
	“I am one of only 300 HIV positive haemophiliacs who remain alive and was infected at only nine years of age. Of those originally infected in the 1980s, more than three-quarters have died during the course of the past 3 decades. Many of them were my friends. I was also infected with Hepatitis B and C, and despite
	treatment, I continue to live with the adverse effects of cirrhosis of the liver. I am also one of the 3,872 haemophiliacs…who have been notified as being considered ‘At-Risk’ of variant CJD…Despite the authorities always maintaining that the risk was merely ‘theoretical’, I was shocked to learn in February 2009, that an elderly haemophiliac had been found with vCJD…in his body during post mortem…This news was not entirely unexpected, but I still became very worried that vCJD had the capability to become yet another ravaging illness.
	More recently, I was informed by my doctors that I had been exposed to yet another pathogen, this time, Hepatitis E…As I sigh in disbelief that there seems to be no end to the multiple infections, I try to keep looking forward with some degree of hope that this will, one day, be sorted out once and for all.”
	Those are the words of an extremely brave and resolute man. He and all the other sufferers deserve respect—which they are not getting from the current financing arrangements—they deserve justice and they deserve a full and proper compensation package. That should include compensation for family members. It should deal with all conditions, and it should remove the stigma of means-testing, ATOS assessments and so on. That is the least that we, as a country, can do for people who have suffered as a consequence of the state’s action.

Julian Lewis: Mr Deputy Speaker, having come late to the debate because of a clash with a meeting of a parliamentary Committee on which I serve, I am grateful for the indulgence of the Chair in allowing me to make a brief contribution.
	I wish to focus on three points. The first is that people are still, even now, long after the event, being discovered to have been infected with contaminated blood; the second is that momentum for a settlement is in danger of being lost; and the third is that the best treatment is not always available for those who have been infected.
	I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) and others said about the debate being a chance to give a voice to individual constituents. I was also struck by the question asked on 10 December of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was standing in for the Prime Minister, by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), because he said in that question what he repeated today—that the scandal had reflected badly on successive Governments, possibly going back as far as that of Harold Wilson, if not further. In the context of momentum being lost, he said that the Prime Minister had undertaken in June to look at and rectify the situation. In fact, according to my constituent, Mrs Lesley Hughes, who only a week before he asked his question had got in touch with me about this very issue, the Prime Minister had apparently told one of his own constituents who was affected by this that he hoped to have a resolution within six months. This would have meant the end of the last calendar year.
	I said that my first point was that people are still being discovered who were infected long ago, and that is Lesley Hughes’s situation. In 1970, she and her future husband were involved in a very serious road traffic accident in London, and she had to receive no fewer than 44 pints of blood. For many years she knew nothing about the fact that she had been infected, although over those years she had many visits to GPs and hospitals with numerous symptoms of illness, and considerable pain and suffering. Only last year was
	it finally discovered that she had been infected with hepatitis C by NHS contaminated blood. Her main concern in writing to me initially was that, given that the Prime Minister had said that he hoped to wrap the issue up himself, she was really anxious that we should not get to the general election—which is, after all, scheduled to be about five months after the deadline that the Prime Minister had set himself—without reaching a resolution.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am not sure that the exact undertaking that the Prime Minister gave is recorded anywhere, but it is recorded in exactly those terms by my constituent, Joseph Peaty, as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that the impression was left that the Prime Minister would do his very best to get a settlement by the end of the year? We are past that deadline now. Does he agree that, irrespective of the reports being compiled, we do now have the means necessary to settle the issue, and that is what the Prime Minister should try to do?

Julian Lewis: That is exactly my view, and for that reason I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health, drawing attention to the matter. I received a reply dated 12 January from the Minister who will reply to this debate. Of course she was sympathetic in the terms that she used, but the important part of her letter was the conclusion, which was that
	“this issue is being looked at very seriously, and…an announcement will be made to affected individuals and MPs once work has been concluded.”
	My simple question to the Minister is, when will that work be concluded, and will she and the Prime Minister undertake to get this work concluded, on behalf of my constituent and many others, before this Parliament comes to an end? Otherwise, we are back to square one—a cycle which I am sure has been repeated over and over again.
	Finally, I said that I would mention the other point about how the best treatment is not always available. I understand from Lesley, whom I have not met yet but whom I believe to be present with her husband today, and whom I hope to meet after the debate, that there are problems with the fact that many people suffering from infection are offered the older interferon and ribavirin-based treatment, and that not everybody can tolerate that, particularly as it takes a long time to clear the system, and particularly if they are people who are at a later stage of their life.
	If the Minister cannot answer today, will she perhaps write to me later about the situation of patients in that position? Kinder and more effective treatments are available, but are not always sanctioned for reasons of cost either by NICE or by individual health trusts. I wish to give others the opportunity to speak, but once again I thank my constituent for her bravery in allowing me to tell her story and attribute it to her, and I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to contribute to the debate at such a late stage.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and others who have worked on this issue for some time, as well as those whose names are on
	the Order Paper today, those who contributed to the report of the all-party parliamentary group and all hon. Members who have spoken today.
	I will not name any names in my speech—my constituents have asked me not to do so because of their continuing fear of stigmatisation. I shall use their words, however, because, frankly, I have nothing more powerful to say.

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He, like me, is the Member for a Welsh constituency. Does he agree that it is important that as we move forward the Government work closely with the Welsh Government, particularly on things such as treatments, so that there is help for those Welsh constituents now that health is devolved?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. We need a UK solution because this is a UK problem, so work must be done in concert with the devolved Administrations and Governments.
	My constituent says that in 1982:
	“We were called into consultant’s office, at the…Hospital…My future wife was pregnant and we were strongly advised to have a termination. However, he was not specific about reasons why, other than the possibility of our child either having or carrying haemophilia, so we refused.
	1983—Our son was born and they wanted to take a blood test from him. It was after this they told us of my…HIV infection, at this early stage they had no idea what it entailed. We were advised not to mention to other patients at the hospital and to refrain from sexual intercourse until they knew more. Thankfully our son did not have the virus. Feeling uncertain about the future, it was awful to be told we had to keep this to ourselves. At this time it was very much publicised in the media and friends of ours, who knew of my Haemophilia began questioning us on whether or not I had been affected. Suffice to say I felt I was on borrowed time and on my own admittance, went off the rails and neglected my son and new wife.
	1985—My wife fell pregnant again and convinced I was going to die sometime soon, the fear and uncertainty about the future made us feel we had no option but to have a termination.”
	He goes on to say that a support group was set up and:
	“We began attending meetings with the group and felt better for the support but sadly the participants began dying at an alarming rate and it just made the situation worse.
	1991—My brother, who also had Haemophilia and HIV passed away. Prior to this we had undergone clinical trials at the hospital and because we were brothers, he was given the placebo. The guilt I felt because I was taking the actual product and had survived was indescribable. The following year my second brother was tragically killed.
	1993—In short I had given up, I knew I was going to die and felt I could fight no longer. I ended up in hospital with PCP pneumonia and my wife was told I had a matter of weeks. Even though I had given up on myself thankfully my family and the hospital staff hadn’t…and I eventually pulled through.”
	He goes on to describe their three-and-a-half-year fight from 1995 to become the first couple with HIV status in the UK to adopt despite being told no, no and no again. He continues:
	“2001—We were asked to consider adopting two more children”,
	in addition to the one they had adopted during that period,
	“a boy and a girl aged five and seven. We agreed and my wife finally had the family she had been craving. It was just after this, I was told I had also contracted Hepatitis C and possibly vCJD. Obviously we were devastated and all the old uncertainties we
	had pushed to the back of our minds pushed forward with force. However, all was not lost I was assured a treatment was available.
	2002—Late in the year, I began treatment for Hepatitis C. We had been warned prior to this, I wasn’t going to be easy to live with but looking back now I feel this was an understatement. The two children we had living with us, had severe psychological problems and their behaviour just served to exacerbate the situation and subsequently the placement broke down.
	2003—The two children went back into care and I found myself unable to cope with my grieving wife and my two existing children. I wasn’t in a very good place at this time and my wife and I came very close to separation. It was only because we had been together since we were sixteen and married at seventeen, we worked to stay together. The treatment reacted with my HIV drugs and I ended up in High Dependency with Pancreatitis. Following this, my wife had to sell her business as I was ill and unable to cope at home without significant help.”

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case, but what strikes me is that not only the individual is suffering but the family members are, too—the wife, the children and everyone else. It is striking.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. It rips through not only the individual but their families, friends and every other aspect of their life.
	I will continue to the end of my constituent’s story, as it goes on to this day. In 2004, the selling of the business meant that they had limited income and were unable to meet their bills. The debts piled up during their financial struggles and this put additional strain on the marriage. He goes on:
	“2005—Our debt situation was spiralling out of control and as I felt a little better in myself my wife, who had studied for a degree while she was out of work could now get a…job as a care manager and she went back to work full time.
	2006—We were asked about taking another child for adoption. Understandably following the breakdown of the last placement we were wary but agreed as everything seemed far better than it had been. It was in 2007 we had our second adopted daughter.”
	From 2006 to 2010 they saved what they could to clear the debts they had accumulated since 2003. For the next few years, because of his deteriorating health, his wife had to return to part-time work rather than full time and the debts accumulated again. To bring this up to date:
	“We have cleared our debts and with my wife working part time we are managing day to day to keep our heads above water. We have the basics we cannot save money or enjoy holidays. We keep away from past friends as I am well aware of how ill I look and do not want to answer their questions. I take a great deal of medication and am trying to live with the side effects, as is my wife!
	The Macfarlane Trust had recently sent us a ‘disbursement of reserves’ form, requiring personal and in depth information to enable us to possibly have some money for home improvements. My wife and I felt it was an extremely unjust and unfair way of attempting to distribute funds amongst sufferers of HIV and their families. Not everyone would, or could qualify as they were in rental accommodation, or perhaps their home was not in need of improvements. It was causing a divide amongst the few that have survived this atrocity and we refused to complete it as any reserves we felt need to be distributed equally amongst those of us that are left. It seems the discrimination, separation and sheer lack of consideration for the primary beneficiaries is still very much in evidence.”
	My constituents, like those mentioned in so many stories today, are asking not to have to go out with a begging bowl in complex situations, having to prove that they are worthy. This is an entitlement, not something to be begged for. They want some form of inquiry and a clear apology and there is a crying need for root and branch reform of the structures that have been put in place to help them. This is not working satisfactorily.
	My constituents’ story will be reflected in the story of every person and every family affected. The disease does not simply affect them; it forces many into penury, marital difficulty and so many other social problems. It is time to sort this out once and for all.

Richard Fuller: I shall try to restrict my speech to two minutes, because I know that we want to hear the speeches from the two Front Benchers and, of course, from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who so nobly started this constructive debate, which will be a great comfort to my constituent, whose family life was devastated when she lost her husband at a young age with a very young family.
	The debate has been constructive and we have heard of a number of measures that have been taken over a number of years. We also have the constructive recommendations from the all-party parliamentary group, which have featured heavily. I do not wish to sound a discordant note in this constructive debate, but I believe that despite all that there remains a suspicion to which I want to give voice. The suspicion is that all the responses from the Department of Health over the years have had to be drawn out of it and have not been freely given. The measures are often seen as a contrivance to ensure that a full answer has never been given, and people do not know why. The compensation provided is a construction of a response, but there is a belief that beneath this lies a darkness—a darkness that breeds suspicion about the root causes of all we have talked about today and about who was responsible, and about the feeling that those people remain faceless and nameless, fearing exposure for actions that may have led to what might have been a mighty, mighty wrong, and having an absence of courage to repent of those actions.
	We all have to remember that it is our NHS. It does not belong to a political party or to the Department’s officials—it belongs to the people. My request to the two Front Benchers is: will they, to the extent of their powers, shine a light on this darkness and, beyond any financial consideration, provide that comfort to the hearts and memories of the victims?

Andy Burnham: We have heard a series of fine speeches today—as has been said, Parliament truly at its best—but none more powerful and affecting than that of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in leading the debate. Many of the things he said will have affected people greatly, but the words that remain with me now are those that he quoted from a letter he had received: “Every day is like a day on death row for a crime I did not commit.” If that does not convey the sense of injustice we are dealing with, nothing else will, because it really is that appalling.
	When historians come to look back at the 2010-15 Parliament, it will be seen to be characterised by a welcome drive to correct historical injustice. First, we saw the apology in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday. We have seen a range of ongoing inquiries related to historical child abuse. There was the action on the injustice that I know too well from my own personal background—the death of 96 innocent people at Hillsborough. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who put those names on the record. But we cannot put on record the names of the people in this case who have suffered such devastation—not just the people who have died but those whose lives have been ruined as a result of this scandal, and it is a scandal.
	What opened up those other injustices has not been the Government voluntarily moving to correct those wrongs, but Parliament. The resolution to those other injustices began here. It is beholden on each and every one of us here today to remember that and to use the power that we have from the office that we hold to work together across the Floor of this House to find a resolution for the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined by this scandal. If we hold to the cross-party spirit that delivered the beginnings of justice in those other campaigns, then we will do so in this case too. The right hon. Gentleman described it as the 15th worst peacetime disaster—like Hillsborough, entirely man-made. To add to that, Lord Winston has described it as
	“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.”
	We must resolve today, even if we cannot do it in the time that remains in this Parliament, to make sure that this injustice and this scandal is resolved early in the next Parliament, and that the people who have suffered finally have truth and justice.
	I want to explain why I am standing at this Dispatch Box today. Like many others who have spoken, I have constituents who have been victims, including somebody who does not want to be named who speaks of having lived for more than 30 years seeking justice and support, and who contracted HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood in the 1970s and ’80s; and my constituent Simon Carter, whose father died and left the family facing a whole range of financial problems—people whose lives have been for ever altered and devastated by the scandal.
	There is another reason I am here today. It goes back to a time towards the end of the previous Parliament, when somebody who has been mentioned by Members in all parts of the House, my good, late friend Paul Goggins, asked me to meet him and his constituents Fred and Eleanor Bates and Peter Mossman—now the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) whom he mentioned so movingly—in my constituency office in Leigh, and I did. I had no real understanding of what they had been through, and were going through, until I sat down with them, at Paul’s request, and listened to what they said. That campaign mattered hugely to Paul, whom I miss every day. I will continue to work in his memory to get justice not just for his former constituents but for everybody who has been mentioned in the debate. I want to signal the seriousness with which I will address this issue by speaking in this debate today.
	As people have said, it is not that nothing has been done. Plenty has been done. There have been well-meaning attempts in all parts of the House down the years to put in place mechanisms to try to lessen the hardship and address the problems that people face in their daily lives. However, as many hon. Members have said, that has left a patchwork of support that is complex and bureaucratic—that, in the end, is about handing out bits and pieces, with people having to go cap in hand, not even given the dignity they should now have in having the problems that they were given rectified in a proper manner.
	As a result of that meeting with Paul and his then constituents in my office in 2010, I reopened the issue at the end of the previous Parliament. Many Members have mentioned the Archer report. A resolution was put in place after that report, but it was not good enough, and that was recognised in all parts of the House. Paul asked me to look again at the issue, and I did.
	I want to bring a new perspective to this debate—that of a former Minister who tried to do something; indeed, a former Secretary of State, because that is what I was at the time. I do not say this to blame any individual in the Department of Health, but more in terms of speaking as I found as I tried to lift the shutters that had been pulled down on an issue that the Department wanted to go away. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who is no longer in his place, said that Governments of both parties have failed, and that is absolutely right— they have; there is no debate about that. But I do not detect the failure being caused by Members of Parliament or, indeed, Ministers; I have met many who want to resolve this in the right way. I have to say that in my experience the resistance is found in the civil service within Government. That is often the case in examples such as this; I found the same with Hillsborough too. It is very hard to move that machine to face up to historical injustice.

Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. Nobody wants to point the finger of blame, but he has gone to the heart of a problem in Government. He speaks with great authority as a previous Secretary of State. He says that it is hard to get officials to do what a Minister wants, and that is certainly true, but is it not also the case, and therefore a failure of successive Governments, in the plural, and Ministers, in the plural, that officials advise and Ministers decide? That is part of the failure so far.

Andy Burnham: I believe that it is. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made this point. Perhaps there is a resistance that comes from not wanting to point the finger or to show the culpability of people who perhaps did not do their jobs as well as they might, but that is unacceptable. That is not something that anybody elected to serve in this place should accept. On a personal level, I know how hard it is when faced with such resistance. The way to help a Minister in that position is by giving them the sort of support that has been expressed throughout this Chamber today. That is what gives a Minister the power to have the courage to make a change.
	The result of my efforts led to a review of the Skipton Fund, and I give credit to the current Government for continuing that work. It led to a small improvement,
	which has been mentioned, but, by God, it was hard enough to get that, so I do not underestimate how difficult it will be to move things forward.
	Part of the problem is that the people dealing with the issue inside Government are insulated from the people we sit alongside in our constituencies and whose stories we listen to. Could there be a more heart-breaking story than that told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about the damage that this scandal has caused down the years? People need to hear and listen to what is being said, to understand why it is immoral to allow the situation to persist and go uncorrected.
	I will not go through all the problems raised by colleagues about the inadequacy of the current process of applying for support, but I will pay tribute to the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), produced an outstanding report yesterday. I believe it will further reinforce the case for truth and justice.
	I wish to draw the House’s attention to another development, which has not been mentioned today, namely the filing of a legal case by three unnamed victims. They have written to the Health Secretary, asking him to come forward with a settlement before full legal proceedings take place. Of course, it should not have to come to that, but, as colleagues have said, people are still waiting and they have waited long enough. We hope the Health Secretary will listen to that request and take action as soon as he can.
	If the Minister, working with the Secretary of State, is able to find a solution, she will have the support of Labour Front Benchers and, I am sure, Members throughout the House. We will offer our good offices to ensure that a settlement can be reached. There needs to be a proper and fair resolution. None of us can predict what the make-up of the House or, indeed, the Government will be after the coming election, but I personally commit to working towards that full and final settlement for which people have waited long enough. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will make a similar commitment. As Paul Goggins said in the Westminster Hall debate mentioned by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire,
	“no debate about the issue should omit the need for a proper acknowledgement of what took place and why, and a profound and sincere apology for the suffering created by the disaster.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 201WH.]
	The full and final settlement should have four components. First, there must be a national apology for the suffering down the years. Secondly, to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has said, there must be an inquiry. Whether it should be a public inquiry or not is a matter to be debated, but, having been involved in the campaign for justice for the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster, I know that other forms of inquiry can reach the truth and unlock a campaign for justice. There may be other ways to do it, but people need disclosure: they need to understand how this was allowed to happen. In my view, all papers held by the Department of Health should be released so that people can begin to see the full truth of what went wrong. I do not believe there is any reason at all to prevent that from happening.
	The third element is, of course, a proper settlement for all those who have suffered—not just those who are still suffering, but families who suffered greatly as a result of the disruption caused to their lives. Fourthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, we must give the best treatment possible to those who are still suffering.
	The all-party group’s report quoted somebody infected with hepatitis C:
	“You can’t give us back our health. But you can give us back our dignity. This tortured road has been too long for many of us. But for the rest of us, please let this be the final road to closure.”
	Everybody present needs to listen to those words and act on them. Sadly, many of those affected have died and are not able to listen to our proceedings, but they, those who remain and the families they have left behind deserve the dignity of a full and lasting settlement.

Jane Ellison: I welcome the tone with which the shadow Secretary of State responded to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing this debate and on his hard work and commitment—as a Minister, I am well aware of it—over the past year. The same is true of so many colleagues who have worked on behalf of those infected with NHS-supplied blood or blood products before 1991.
	I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, which has been conducted in a constructive and thoughtful way, and, of course, distinguished former colleagues who championed their constituents so ably in the past. As we have heard, many of those constituents have been profoundly affected by this issue. I attended the last debate on it when I was a Back Bencher, and today I have heard once again about the impact these infections have had on the lives of individuals and families.
	I will focus mainly on the current situation rather than the past, not because the past does not matter, but because it has been ably covered and because I want to add to the knowledge of the situation as it is now and give an indication of the way forward. I hope Members will understand that. If there are any issues that I do not address, I will, of course, write to Members, and if their concerns involve other Departments, I will seek to get a response from them.
	There have been calls for a further inquiry and review. That subject has come up before, with calls to look at the historic circumstances of these events. There are various ways in which that could be done and I acknowledge the suggestion made by the shadow Secretary of State. I stress that the Government wish to be as transparent as possible about these events, but I remind the House that they have already been repeatedly examined in a number of different ways, including in court on a number of occasions, and the Department of Health has already published on its website all the relevant documents held for the period up to 1986. I acknowledge that there might be more to do, some of which relates to Lord Penrose’s work.
	The Penrose inquiry has loomed over this debate. Let me give the House a sense of my frustration. When I came into office, I was advised that the original date of
	publication would be June 2014. Let me also give the House a sense of the seriousness with which I took the preparation for that report. I met Scottish Health Ministers last spring to discuss it and other issues. Obviously, work is taking place in Scotland and the publication of the final report has been delayed. The inquiry now expects to announce a publication date this month. There has been no formal confirmation, although a date has been offered during the course of the debate. I understand that Lord Penrose will examine any particular adverse consequences for infected patients and their families, and identify lessons and implications for the future. That is why we feel we need to wait to see the report.
	As the events under discussion took place before devolution, the final report of the inquiry will clearly be of interest to the Government and we await its recommendations. I am extremely frustrated by the continued delay and accept that it will have an impact on the scope of our response in this Parliament.
	As has been touched on, the Government, like their predecessors, provide ex-gratia financial and other support through the system of payment schemes that is in place.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister has touched on the nub of the issue, namely the Penrose report and the delayed decision. Does she agree that we do not really need that? The broad aspect of the financial settlement that ought to be made is well known to the Government. It is a matter of getting a decision now.

Jane Ellison: I will come on to why I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but my concern is essentially that after families have endured so much, I would hate to tell them the way forward only for that to be unpicked and revisited in the light of any recommendations by Penrose. I am afraid that I do not agree with him, because it is important to consider the report.

Andy Slaughter: A moment ago, the Minister said that, given the late reporting of Penrose, she would have to consider the scope of the Government response. Will she be a little more specific: what are the Government likely to say and how far will they go before the election?

Jane Ellison: I will come on to that. Although I cannot be as specific as I would like, I will try to give the House some sense of the way forward.
	I stress that the support currently provided is over and above any other state benefits that infected individuals and their families may receive, and moneys paid under the schemes are not subject to tax. Some hon. Members have raised issues relating to the DWP, and I will of course bring those concerns to its attention.
	I am aware that many hon. Members have concerns, which they have expressed in some detail, about the way that support for those affected is delivered. During the past year, I have listened to and actively considered the thoughts of all colleagues about how to improve the system. I have met the officers of the all-party group, and spoken a number of times to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire.
	I acknowledge that there is scope for reviewing the support system. I have been open with hon. Members about the fact that I share their concerns about the charitable basis of that support. I thank my right hon. Friend and the all-party group for the survey on which
	they recently collaborated. This is the first large-scale effort to consult beneficiaries, their families and the wider public on the current system. I will certainly consider its findings—I have looked at the executive summary of the report, which was only published yesterday—and all the other sources of information. From my conversations with Members over the past year, I have a good sense of the report’s direction of travel and of their concerns.
	As I have said, in considering possible reforms to the current system, we must take into account Lord Penrose’s findings and recommendations before any specific proposals are made, but I have been ably supported by my civil servants in looking at possible reforms. His report is likely to be lengthy: to give the House some sense of that, the interim report published in 2010 exceeded 600 pages.
	If Penrose does not publish until shortly before the House rises, it will be challenging, as Members have recognised, to provide a considered and thoughtful Government response in such a short time. I want to give due respect and consideration to Lord Penrose and his report, not least because it matters so much to so many individuals and families. As I have said, after all they have been through, it would be terrible for us to announce measures that then had to be unpicked or revisited. I reassure the House that however late in the Parliament Penrose reports, we will make a response, although that will inevitably have to be an interim response.
	Having acknowledged that not everyone is satisfied—far from it—with the current system of support, it is extremely important to remember that the system makes an enormous difference to the lives of many beneficiaries. To date, more than £365 million in support has been paid to more than 5,000 people in the UK affected by HIV and hepatitis C and their families. Through the reforms made in January 2011, which some Members have mentioned, the Government have improved the system of support. Since they were introduced, more than £70 million in extra funding has been made available in England.
	Something that is new since the House last debated this issue is the therapies that are coming through. Members have spoken about the side effects and impacts of existing therapies. Many of the new therapies have a much higher cure rate than existing ones, with far fewer side effects. We understand that cure rates for new therapies are between 90% and 95%, and that the courses of treatment are much shorter. Those figures are based on clinical trials. New data from the early access programme will be evaluated to confirm the robustness of that finding, but it is obviously encouraging news.
	I am encouraged by some of the improvements that we can make to the quality of life of those who have suffered from their infections for so long. New treatments for hepatitis C are becoming available through the NHS. While we have been waiting for NICE to publish its final appraisal of the first of the new drugs—Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir—NHS England has taken two important steps to ensure that eligible patients with late-stage hepatitis C can expect to have received treatment by the end of 2015. In April 2014, it published an interim clinical commissioning policy statement to provide access to the new therapies for patients with liver failure. More than 700 patients have already been treated through this
	policy, at a cost of £38 million. Specialist centres were procured to deliver this early access treatment around the country.
	The NHS is developing a further interim clinical commissioning policy for patients with compensated cirrhosis to reduce the risk of their developing decompensated cirrhosis or liver cancer. Subject to its internal approval processes, the NHS is aiming to have that in place from this April. I have confirmed with the clinical director that if any hon. Members are approached by constituents with hepatitis C, they should advise them to consult their GP about a referral to a hepatology specialist to determine whether they have developed cirrhosis.
	Medical advances continue to improve the ways in which HIV and hepatitis C can be treated and managed, and I want to take this opportunity to assure the House that the UK now has one of the safest blood supplies in the world, and independent experts continually review current safeguards.
	This debate has again allowed me to hear about the issues with which many of those affected live daily. I of course recognise that improvements must be made to the system that provides financial assistance, and I have given considerable thought to that over the past year. Together with those we represent, we need to be realistic about the challenge of making changes that are fair and sustainable. It is very welcome that we can work on a cross-party basis—that is absolutely vital—and it is most reassuring that several hon. Members have emphasised that.
	I am hugely frustrated that the much longed-for closure cannot realistically be achieved in this Parliament. Nevertheless, a new Parliament is imminent, and it will provide an opportunity for the next Government to provide closure.

Tom Clarke: The Minister will recall that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made some profound comments about the role of the civil service in dealing with these problems. Will she take time to respond to them?

Jane Ellison: I have noted the comments of the shadow Secretary of State. I can only speak from my own experience and say that in all the ways in which I have wished to consider this issue—those have ranged widely over the past year—I have been ably supported by my civil servants. Ultimately, this decision is a political one.
	The issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I assure hon. Members that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I continue to work towards that vital aim. I have said that however late Penrose reports, we will respond while the House is sitting. Inevitably, that will have to be an interim response. However, I hope that we can give the House some sense of the work undertaken over the past year and, at that time, respond to the direction of travel signalled in the all-party group’s report and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire.
	In conclusion, I want to say that this was an utterly appalling tragedy, which has caused grief and sadness to many people and their families, as we have so often
	heard. The Government must do right by those people on whose behalf so many Members have spoken today. I will take away everything that has been said, and as long as I am in my current office, I will continue to work to bring to Parliament the conclusion that so many Members have said they want.

Alistair Burt: I thank all Members who have spoken. What I am most proud of is my role in enabling this debate to take place, which has provided the opportunity for so many speeches. The best contributions were made not just by hon. Members, but by our constituents, because in very many cases we used the words that they have given to us so that we could be their voices. If memorable phrases from today’s debate are remembered, they will be theirs.
	I warmly thank all colleagues for their hard work, and I thank those who have worked on the report, not least my secretary Sam Mackewn, who has done a great deal of work in the background. I say a huge thank you to all those in the community of sufferers and beneficiaries who have helped us.
	If I have thought of anything during the debate, it is that there is a moment when one feels things shifting. The shadow Secretary of State was right: this Parliament is known for a number of things, but as we have seen through elected Select Committees and their Chairs, it exercises greater power than it used to, as was evidenced by what we heard today. We have all been involved in this issue for a long time—I have been involved with it for more than a decade—and I got the sense that Members of Parliament have just been here too long and listened too many times to the same things. There is almost a sense, not of anger, but of the frustration becoming something else, and I do not think that a future Parliament will wear a Government of any stripe that does not do something about it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) put things plainly, and with his support and the imprimatur of another couple of colleagues who are known to be restrictive about public finances, I think we are into a new age on this issue. Having seen that something is wrong, and that finance is needed to put it right, I get the sense that Parliament will demand that of its Government. If the Government cannot respond before the election—as I made clear, I entirely understand and accept what the Minister said—then all the parties have manifestos to write. We could all put something in our manifestos that gives a clear commitment about what will happen should we form part of a Government in the future, and there is no reason why that should not be done with some degree of co-operation. Those who have been so faithful in pursuing this issue, in circumstances that we heard described today, will know that at last they have a Parliament that will no longer take no for an answer.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports a further review of the circumstances surrounding the passing of infection via blood products to those with haemophilia and others during the 1970s and 1980s; notes the recent report from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood into the support arrangements provided for those who contracted blood-borne viruses as a result; also notes that the Penrose Inquiry into these events will
	shortly be publishing its findings in Scotland; further notes that those who contracted viruses and their partners and dependants continue to be profoundly affected by what happened; therefore welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment to look again at this issue; and calls on the Government to respond positively to the APPG report and engage actively with those affected with a view to seeking closure to these long standing events.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has not been selected. I call Geraint Davies, who has 10 to 15 minutes to move the motion.

Geraint Davies: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and any associated investor-state dispute settlement provisions should be subject to scrutiny in the European Parliament and the UK Parliament.
	I thank the 60 or so MPs who supported this Backbench Business Committee debate, as well as the Committee’s Chair and those who supported the early-day motion and my International Trade Agreements (Scrutiny) Bill. This debate is supported by trade unions, business and environmental movements, and 38 Degrees has also got involved. Many people are encouraged and Members are glad that they are able to engage with hundreds of constituents on this important issue.
	This issue is fundamental to the balance of power between democracy and multinational giants who want to impose their interests on our democratic rights. Our right to scrutinise this very important and strategic trade agreement, which will have global ramifications into the future, is imperative. If we end up with a situation where multinational companies are able to sue democratically elected Governments over laws they have passed to protect their citizens, we will be in the wrong place altogether.

Anne Main: Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me about this issue, and there is concern about things being stitched up behind closed doors, such as the use of genetically modified crops and so on. It is welcome that the issue is debated and kept under scrutiny by this Parliament.

Geraint Davies: I very much welcome that intervention. The harsh reality is that this deal is being stitched up behind closed doors by negotiators, with the influence of big corporations and the dark arts of corporate lawyers. They are stitching up rules that would be outside contract law and common law, and outside the shining light of democracy, to give powers to multinationals to sue Governments over laws that were designed to protect their citizens.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he welcome, as I do, the suspension of the investor-state dispute settlement section of the negotiations, and does that hopefully mean that we can be in a better place, without some of the concerns to which he has correctly alluded?

Geraint Davies: I will move on to those issues and I do, of course, agree.
	There is a current risk that the agreement struck behind closed doors is only subjected to yes or no—take it or leave it—in the European Parliament, and that
	ratification in this House occurs after the implementation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. That is hardly democracy. Today I am calling—it is not much of a call—simply for parliamentarians here and in Europe to have the right to scrutiny. The mechanics for that would be to empower us to recommend amendments that could be made by other representatives in Europe.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House who has access to the reading room in Brussels for the documents on this treaty? There is significant access, and I hope he will clarify how many people, and who, can look at those documents.

Geraint Davies: Until recently, it was just Lord Livingston from our point of view. He could go in without any photocopier or camera and try to memorise what was there, and move out. More recently, access has been enabled for some of our MEPs. However, this is a case of thousands of people—indeed, 1.2 million people have signed a petition because they are concerned about TTIP—banging on the door and wanting access, and realising belatedly the real risks in front of us.

John Spellar: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sixteen people want to speak in the debate, as well as those on the Front Benches. Those who are intervening also want to speak, and they are in danger of dropping down the list. I am trying to keep the debate tight, so I hope Members will think about their interventions. It is up to Geraint Davies whether he gives way to Mr Spellar.

Geraint Davies: indicated assent.

John Spellar: Briefly, does my hon. Friend think that this will be a mixed competence agreement?

Geraint Davies: I very much hope it will be, as I said, but I do not know, and that is the whole point. We do not know whether it will be mixed competence— in other words, we do not know whether it will be railroaded through without any ratification here before implementation, as was the case with the Peruvian and Colombian treaties. This has not been made up; this is the sort of lack of democracy that has already been railroaded through, and there is real fear that it will happen again. I say that because we face austerity in Europe in the aftermath of the banking crisis, and a Prime Minister who has naturally said that he can see the flashing red lights on the front of the global economy, and that he wants to put a rocket booster under TTIP. There is enormous pressure to have a quick deal.
	I am in favour of trade. I think trade is good, and any one with a rudimentary knowledge of economics—I like to think that the Minister has that—will know that the law of comparative advantage will normally generate the fruits of trade. Those fruits are meant to be something in the order of £93 billion per year for Europe, and £74 billion to the United States. Cecilia Malmström, the negotiator and commissioner on this, has said that there
	will be growth and jobs, although I realise that there is a lot of controversy and different figures are being thrown around. However, it is generally accepted that trade generates added value.
	One question for us concerns where the fruits of trade go. Do they go to the many, or are they stockpiled offshore by multinational giants in untaxed profits? Fundamentally, we are talking about whether the trade deal will undermine our democracy, our public services, our rights, our health, our environment and so on.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geraint Davies: Briefly. I am aware of the time constraints.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way to so many interventions. The ripples of laughter from Government Members at somebody on the Opposition Benches supporting the free market are surprising. One area of TTIP is food and food production, the biggest manufacturing sector and employer in the UK. TTIP could have huge opportunities for the food sector, but only if it involves a race to the top in standards, protection of animal welfare and standards of food hygiene, and not a race to the bottom. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can support good competition and trade agreements, but we have to ensure that standards applied are good?

Geraint Davies: I completely agree. We certainly do not want to open the backdoor to genetically modified foods or cloned meat or “McClonie” burgers or whatever they happen to be. We want to keep standards up. This is part of getting all the detail right and having a proper level of scrutiny. I am not complaining about TTIP itself. It could be a vehicle to deliver prosperity and regulate globalisation. Globalisation is occurring and it needs regulation. Who better to engage with that than the most developed and civilised part of the world, which is of course Europe.

George Howarth: I want to return to the principle my hon. Friend enunciated a few moments ago. It is possible to be in favour of free trade, but not in favour of raising the potential for public services to be up for grabs for anyone who cares to bid for them. Does he agree that that is the essential principle?

Geraint Davies: That is very important indeed. I agree with my right hon. Friend. The thorn in the rose is the investor-state dispute settlement—the ISDS. As has been mentioned, this is an opportunity for deals to be struck behind closed doors to empower multinational companies, within a new system of law outside the law with which we govern ourselves, to sue democratically elected Governments for passing laws that protect people.

Jim Cunningham: Following on from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) about public services, is there not another issue we have to careful about: the erosion of employment rights?

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend is completely right. There are people who say there is no risk from ISDS, but there is a lot of evidence and a track record of
	multinationals using the powers at their disposal to extract money where laws are passed undermining future profit flows. Philip Morris is the obvious example: it is suing Uruguay and Australia for something like $100 million. Lone Pine is suing the Canadian Government for about $250 million, because Quebec wants a moratorium on fracking. Achmea, the Dutch insurer, is suing the Slovakian Government who tried to reverse some of their health privatisations. Argentina has paid more than $1 billion to US and EU energy giants, because it froze energy and water prices. If these powers are available, they will be used to fleece the taxpayer. In my view, they are unnecessary. I accept that some protection may be needed between developed economies and democracies and rogue states, but rogue states are certainly not the United States. Mature democracies and economies, namely the EU and the US, do not need anything more than contract law to protect investors.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the United Kingdom is a party to some 90 international trade deals that involve the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Does he know how many cases the United Kingdom has ever lost using the mechanism?

Geraint Davies: I do not have the numbers to hand.

Caroline Lucas: I can tell the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) that the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, who are in trade agreements that include this kind of investor-state relationship, have been sued 127 times and have lost an amount of money that could have employed 300,000 nurses for a year. The idea that this is not a problem is patently wrong. This is about a corporate takeover and that is why it is right to oppose this particular mechanism.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, which underlines why, of the 155,000 people who contributed to the consultation by the Commission on TTIP and the ISDS, 97% were against the ISDS. As has been pointed out in other interventions, there are dangers to our procurement, food standards, rights at work and environmental protection. My personal view is that we should pull the teeth of corporate wolves scratching at the door of TTIP by scrapping the ISDS rules, so we can get on with the trade agreement without this threat over our shoulder.

Angus MacNeil: Is not one of the main concerns, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares as he is from Wales, that the UK has four different health services? There is no member state health service, so if one of those health services opens a certain door, the other health services could also be open and vulnerable.

Geraint Davies: All sorts of assurances have been given on health and social care but they are by no means watertight. We have not got a copper-bottomed agreement like, for example, Finland has with the United States and with Canada, which explicitly excludes all public and private social care and health. As case law has not been established in Britain, the NHS remains at risk. The opening door created by the endless privatisations from the coalition Government creates more scope and
	risk for intervention, which could lead to possibly billions of pounds-worth of legal action if a future Labour Government reversed a lot of the privatisation that has already occurred. Frankly, that would be in contrast to, and conflict with, the democratic wishes of the British people—if we get in.

Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on his remarks so far. Does he agree that the combination of opening up the NHS to competition law through the Health and Social Care Act, together with the refusal to exempt the NHS from TTIP, makes this effectively a privatisation of our NHS?

Geraint Davies: There have been various assurances about trying to close the door on the NHS but it is fundamentally at risk. Due to the lack of case law, at any point a judge could say “Here is an area where there is already private competition. We will allow TTIP; why shouldn’t we?” The more it goes forward, the more we are exposed, which is a real problem.

Matthew Offord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geraint Davies: I must continue as I will be told off by Mr Deputy Speaker if I do not. I will try to give way later.
	MPs should have the right to scrutinise the TTIP Trojan horse and remove from it the ISDS weapons from the corporate lawyers inside.

Andrew Bingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman has been waiting so I shall give way.

Andrew Bingham: The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and I am sure he is aware that Lord Livingston is coming to the Committee on 11 February, which gives the Committee a chance to conduct some scrutiny. I assume that he, like me, will be at that meeting, as will, I am sure, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith).

Geraint Davies: I will be at that meeting.
	The Labour party is standing on a pledge of freezing energy prices; again there could be a risk of challenge. If we wanted a one-off tax on privatised utilities, such as the one introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), on, for instance, Royal Mail, we could be at risk. If there were a move to partial or actual renationalisation of the railways or whatever, it could be subject to fines. The point is not whether one agrees with these policies; it is whether one thinks that we have the democratic right here on behalf of the people to pass those laws and not face financial intimidation.
	In conclusion, I know that much of what I have said is shared by the Green party. The difference is that it would like to abandon the trade talks altogether and to freeze what we are doing. I would say that we cannot pretend that globalisation is not there. There are risks that I have identified, but it is our duty and opportunity
	to regulate globalisation with gold standards to protect democracy, public services and people’s rights. This is not just for Europe; it is for the world. What we do will be the benchmark for the future to protect ourselves and others from the possible crack of the whip of corporate giants.
	I agree with fair trade. In 1945 Clement Attlee put forward the general agreement on tariffs and trade as the forerunner of the World Trade Organisation. We need to engage and regulate and not have the law of the jungle. As part of that process, I hope that all Members—whatever they think about the balance between public and private, or about the level of protection for the environment, health or workers’ rights—agree that these matters should be decided by democratically elected parliamentarians, and not by corporations with the whip hand of financial intimidation and that they will agree wholeheartedly with my call for scrutiny in this place and in the European Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There will be a six-minute limit. Members should try to stick to that; otherwise it will go down.

Robin Walker: I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) that this is an important debate, I congratulate him on securing it and I welcome the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has granted it. I think the hon. Gentleman has drafted a motion with which no Back-Bench Member could disagree—whatever their views on the value or otherwise of TTIP. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear that the same goes for Front-Bench Members. There can be no doubt that having more parliamentary scrutiny is a good thing.
	I shall talk about the Select Committee scrutiny that has taken place. The European Scrutiny Committee and its work have already been mentioned. I am a member of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which has an ongoing inquiry into this issue. As a member, I have been engaged in this work, and I believe we will be able to produce a balanced and useful report. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who has conducted the inquiry so far in an even-handed and rational way. We still have some sessions to go and I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry, but I would say that on the issue of ISDS, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) was absolutely right to mention the precedent of all the free trade deals in which the UK has ever been involved and ISDS has played a part—and the fact that the UK has never lost a case.
	That said, we heard from a lot of different bodies—the CBI, for example, the Institute of Directors, which provided written evidence, and the TUC, which has acknowledged the benefits that could come from the deal while having genuine concerns about it. I welcome the way in which most of those bodies engaged with us. Even some on the Conservative side of the Committee have concerns that TTIP is not sufficiently transparent. Much of that relates to the fact that the negotiations
	are being conducted by an unaccountable European Commission rather than Ministers directly accountable to this House and capable of answering questions.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only possible justification for having a separate judicial system for business is that existing courts are failing to arbitrate business claims fairly? If that is the case, we really need it, so can he provide some examples of where the courts in the countries involved in trying to get TTIP off the ground have been unable to secure the proper judicial remedies?

Robin Walker: I give the hon. Lady the example of the fact that the UK has never lost a case in ISDS resolutions, showing that this system is functioning in almost all trade deals around the world. Some of the purported threats I have heard simply do not stand up.
	Moving on, I want to address a real concern about parliamentary scrutiny of this issue, particularly in respect of one particular organisation that has given evidence to our Select Committee and caused a significant amount of distress to members of all parties on that Committee. I regret to say that that organisation is the executive—not the members—of 38 Degrees. We heard from a wide variety of interests, including many who approached us with a view to getting their concerns discussed, accepting that parliamentary scrutiny is important. I really welcome that approach being taken by so many organisations.
	Like many Members, I get letters from 38 Degrees and respect the concerns that their members raise. I have met 38 Degrees members in my constituency to discuss their concerns. I do not always agree with their campaigns, but I respect the interest in political discourse that they are encouraging. However, when it came to their evidence to the BIS Committee, I am afraid that the executive of 38 Degrees has let its members down. The attitude that their representative arrived with appeared to be that parliamentary scrutiny—the very purpose of this motion and the object of our inquiry— was secondary to the campaign in which he was engaged, and that it was for MPs to passively accept the views that he was there to express and in no way to question them.
	When asked by the Committee Chairman about the approach the organisation had taken to the campaign, the spokesman immediately became defensive and started to attack politicians in general and the parliamentary process in particular. When asked whether public or official information that disagreed with their assertions was being provided to 38 Degrees members, he first sought to avoid the question and then misled the Select Committee.
	The specific issue in point here is the letter from Commissioner Bercero to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) in which the Commissioner actually handling the TTIP negotiations at the time answered concerns that the Labour party had legitimately raised about the impact of TTIP on the NHS. The letter made it clear that there was no threat of privatisation of the NHS as a result of TTIP, and that as a public service it could be protected. It said that it was up to the UK Government and UK political parties what changes they made to the UK laws affected by it. On the issue of a risk about which Labour was concerned—the ability to change the Health and Social Care Act 2012 owing to ISDS—the letter said:
	“If a future UK Government, or a public body to which power has been devolved, were to reverse decisions taken under a previous Government, for example by discontinuing services provided by a foreign operator, it would be entirely at liberty to do so. However, it would have to respect applicable UK law.”
	Having been briefed about this letter and seen it in the brief for our Select Committee, I did not think it was unreasonable to ask whether this information had been shared with 38 Degrees members to reassure them where they had concerns on this issue. The response of Mr Babbs was immediately to say, “Yes, we have shared that.” However, in supplementary evidence sent to the Committee a few weeks after the meeting, a representative of 38 Degrees had to admit that that this was untrue, writing:
	“The Committee has requested further information about a letter from John Healey that I said I believed was on our website. Having reviewed all of the information on our website (as you will have seen, there is a lot there), I can confirm that this letter is in fact not on the website.”
	Misleading a Select Committee is a serious matter, but I am sure that, if that were the only case, we would all understand that mistakes can be made. However, in the same conversation, Mr Babbs was asked about an article on Buzzfeed which bore the 38 Degrees logo, was headed “TTIP—Four ways a four letter word could ruin your life” and included the headline “Goodbye NHS hello permanent privatisation”. He disclaimed all knowledge of this article, and sought to imply that members of the Committee were out of touch if they did not understand that organisations have no editorial control over what appears on the internet, saying:
	“I do not know if you are familiar with the way Buzzfeed works. Anyone can create a Buzzfeed article. It is not something that 38 Degrees produces. I have not seen that piece, so I cannot comment on it.”
	In supplementary evidence, 38 Degrees has now written to the Committee as follows:
	“I can confirm that the article was written and uploaded by a member of staff at 38 Degrees.”
	It is, perhaps, welcome that 38 Degrees has acknowledged its mistakes and accepted some responsibility for the arguments that it has published. However, despite repeated questioning from a number of members of the Committee, the representative of 38 Degrees was not prepared to acknowledge any flaws in the way in which it had presented its arguments. Indeed, it has launched an aggressive campaign of letter-writing and intimidation. A Labour colleague’s researcher has been reduced to tears, and a Conservative colleague who is always softly spoken and reasonable has been accused of being a harridan. I do not think that that type of campaigning strengthens parliamentary scrutiny, or our ability in this place to hold the Government or the European Commission to account.

John Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) not only on securing the debate but on making it clear in his introduction that he is in favour of trade, and free trade. However, I think he must also accept that he is in some strange company with that particular argument. Many of those campaigning on this issue are definitely not in favour of trade, and I have been on public platforms where they have actually declared as much. I think that they are also against capitalism,
	and they are definitely against anything to do with the United States. It is interesting to note that, whereas we have a huge number of trade agreements, this issue has only become contentious when the United States has become involved.
	We are talking about the creation of a free trade area and a trading and investing bloc amounting to about half the world’s GDP. That is significant to all of us who argue strongly that engagement in the European Union as part of a wider market is enormously important to working people in this country. Engagement in that much wider market, and, in particular, setting better benchmarks for world trade, is also enormously important, but it does not seem to have any impact on organisations such as 38 Degrees. Like other Members who have spoken, I have a slightly ambivalent attitude to 38 Degrees. It has some very decent supporters, many of whom are very concerned and engaged citizens, but it also has a nihilist, hysterical leadership.

Robin Walker: I should just like to put on the record—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of the Chamber’s good nature, I should say to him that to intervene immediately after making a speech is slightly unfair.

John Spellar: I note that all these publications mention a number of cases, including that of Philip Morris Australia. That case has been proceeding for some time. Can anyone tell me what is happening to it? Has it gone anywhere? Anyone can sue, but securing an outcome is very different, whether or not the case is being heard in the domestic courts. I understand that it is not classified as a trade deal, but is governed by World Trade Organisation rules. In any event, I do not think that that case and a number of others have gone anywhere.
	I do not exonerate the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has not dealt with the matter. I raised it with the former trade Minister, and I have raised it with the current trade Minister. Various cases are cited—normally the same cases—but no one seems to come up with any explanation of what they are actually about. If they are about breach of contract, that is one thing. Regrettably, in my view, but perfectly legitimately, or lawfully, the Government are entering into long-term contracts in the probation service. If a new Government wanted to change that, there would be breach of contract proceedings, and they might well be better dealt with in domestic courts, but they also might be better dealt with through arbitration, which we have in a whole number of other areas. We have industrial relations courts and we have various arbitration systems in this country. Therefore, having the full panoply might not be right, but I do accept that there are concerns. There are concerns about whether there would be a ratchet effect. That is why it is very commendable that the EU has been undertaking consultation, and that is also why it is very welcome that there is a possible pause at the moment, because we need to be assured that, for example, changes made to the NHS would be reversible, although I have to say that—this message should be very clear between now and 7 May—the biggest threat of privatisation of the NHS is the re-election of this Conservative Government.
	In many respects the effect of TTIP on this has been dealt with in letters to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) from the EU, spelling out the protections there.

Clive Efford: Does my right my hon. Friend accept, however, that there is a disagreement between many eminent lawyers as to whether TTIP will apply to the NHS, regardless of what the Government say? The other thing not in the Government’s favour when they argue about protecting the NHS is that the intent of many of the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is to impose marketisation on our NHS, so the direction of travel is very much in favour of trade under TTIP. That undermines the Government’s case against it.

John Spellar: They are not in favour of trade; they are in favour of privatisation—and that would be true with domestic companies as well, by the way. That is the major threat, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to insist on an absolutely clear exemption of the NHS from these provisions.
	At the same time we also need to be arguing about the benefits of trade, however. Trade has not only been the basis on which the wealth and prosperity of this country and our people have been built, but over the course of just about 20 years hundreds of millions of people in China have been lifted out of poverty by the favourable impact of trade, in what has probably been the biggest movement of social progress in numbers terms in history. That is why the new Indian Government are seeking to open up their economy as well.
	Who benefits from trade restrictions? It is not the workers, nor the consumers. The people who benefit have almost universally been—this has been the argument for the last two centuries in this House between and within parties—the monopolists, the middlemen, and the incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats. We need only look at the situation in Africa where a very small percentage of trade is between African countries because of restrictions there. That is why it is so regrettable that the Bali agreement to free up that trade has not happened; the stalling of that is undesirable.
	Those are the benefits, and they are benefits for our engineering companies and many of our food manufacturing companies. That is why it is so important that we resolve these other issues, because the benefits are there and the prizes are great.
	There are those who are against this agreement on principle. I am in favour of trade on principle and in favour of this agreement, but in order for it to be effective we must make sure that we get these safeguards.

Robert Walter: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who has made a convincing argument in favour of this trade deal. I support the motion of the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) because I, too, am a democrat and I believe in parliamentary scrutiny. I believe the European Commission should
	ensure the regular publication of documents on the state of the negotiations and they should include more detailed information on what TTIP is all about. The current information that is floating around is based on leaked, rather than officially released, documents and therefore on myths rather than on facts. As the motion suggests, this House—and the other place—should be closely involved in the process, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government are committed to it.
	We must also encourage the European Parliament to pursue its involvement in the negotiations. I hope that the European Commission will live up to its promise to give Members of the European Parliament access to all the negotiation documents. I also hope that, in the forthcoming meetings between the United States and the European Union, the negotiation teams will take into consideration the concerns that we have raised. I hope that the European Commission will secure an agreement on safeguards for the highest environmental and consumer standards, which are already in place here in the European Union and in the United States. I am convinced that achieving a satisfactory compromise on both sides of the Atlantic is both possible and desirable. The European Union has already successfully established an internal market among its 28 member states, but bridging the space between the United States and the European Union by adapting common rules and standards while maintaining the highest levels of regulatory protection is a challenge. I do not believe that it is an impossible task, however.
	Today’s debate should be about the substance of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. It provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enhance the economic security and prosperity of the British people while at the same time making a real contribution to the welfare of the peoples of Europe, north America and beyond. I wholeheartedly believe in free trade, and I subscribe to the goal of global trade that is both free and fair. However, achieving that goal is a slow and grinding process. In my view, it will be many decades before there is any meaningful World Trade Organisation-led, top-down framework that we can call global free trade. That is because the parties involved range from the richest nations on the planet to the poorest, and from the prairie farmers of north America to the subsistence agriculture of sub-Saharan Africa.
	If we truly believe in free trade, we should use the building blocks that we have today. The European Union is the world’s largest market, and we are part of it. It is the biggest building block in this equation. Let us consider the numbers. European Union GDP is 19.4% of world GDP, and United States GDP is 18.9% of world GDP, so together that makes nearly 40% of the world’s productive wealth. Between us, however, we still maintain some of the most stringent tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Below the wire, 30% of the European Union’s stock of foreign direct investment is in the United States, and 29% of the United States’ FDI is in the European Union.
	I believe that this debate is a no-brainer. If we can create free trade across the Atlantic—with Canada as well, of course—and have a transatlantic trade and investment partnership, that will be good for world trade, for the United States, for Europe and for Britain. There are some who want us to turn our backs on all this and leave the European Union, and therefore leave
	a trade deal representing 40% of world GDP. The TTIP negotiations will not be easy, because there are many vested interests, as well as the many concerns that have prompted this debate today. I am optimistic that we can achieve this, however, because the prize is so great and the balance of power so favourable to a deal. Of course, as some eurosceptics would argue in spite of the hard facts, we would still be better off out and better off negotiating our own free trade deal with the US alone. That is a fantasy. Can the UK afford to squander the strategic and economic opportunity that is TTIP? I do not believe we can.
	I reiterate my support for the Government’s commitment to keeping us firmly in the European Union, and for the Government’s commitment to making sure that these TTIP negotiations are a success. I believe this House should have a role to play in that.

David Anderson: I support fair trade, but properly regulated trade. Countries that trade are less likely to end up fighting each other. We would be daft, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) said, to turn our back on a market that includes the biggest consumer society in the world. If we have the opportunity to work those people properly, why would we not do so?
	However, experience tells us to be wary. At the heart of the matter is trust, or the lack of it, in the people we deal with, the failure to be able to hold people accountable, and the worry that the power of Government and big business will be used to abuse people, exploit people and get away with things that it should not get away with.
	I have personal experience of going to the World Trade Organisation summit in Seattle in 1999 and the one in Qatar in 2001. The 1999 summit was a summit of hope. People from around the world went there with a belief that we would make great strides. The big stride that we were looking for from the labour movement was to build into trade negotiations core labour standards whereby nations that wanted to trade with the rest of the world would not use child labour or slave labour. Unfortunately, those talks fell apart because of the behaviour of some people on the ground and the over-reaction of the Seattle police, which led to the stalling of the conference.
	Two years later in Qatar there was no such hope. Two years later, in the aftermath of 9/11, there was only one game in town—George W. Bush wanted to go through Pakistan to Afghanistan to chase al-Qaeda. Nothing else mattered. The Pakistanis, who were crucial to a discussion on core labour standards, did not engage at all with anybody. Because they did not engage, the Americans did not engage. That led to the failure of that round, which has resulted in the stalling of world trade discussions ever since.
	We are now 15 years on. The hon. Member for North Dorset described the process as slow and grinding. It is not slow and grinding; it has virtually halted. That is why we are talking today about another way round what went on or did not go on in those discussions. To have any chance of going forward, we need safeguards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out. We need the right of scrutiny and the people need reassurance. When he was
	in opposition, the Prime Minister lectured the Labour party time and again about the need for transparency and the benefits of letting the sunshine in. That is what we are talking about here.
	It would have been better if, since he became Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman had put that policy into practice—for example, by releasing the papers relating to the miners strike and behaviour of people at the Orgreave coke works, and the papers that go back 42 years to the Shrewsbury pickets. Some of those men are now nearly 90 years old and still cannot access the papers held in the Cabinet Office and other Government buildings that would prove they were innocent.
	Lectures on transparency do not work; facts do. If there is nothing to hide in the negotiations, give us the scrutiny we need. Give us the scrutiny we demand and deserve. Cut out the secrecy and closed doors, and stop using the confidentiality claim. Shine a light so that people can see what is going on.
	Let us be clear. The huge doubt that exists is not engendered solely by organisations such as 38 Degrees or the trade union movement. There is huge doubt in the public mind about the role of these trade negotiations in undermining vital public services.

Andy Slaughter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Anderson: No. There is not much time.
	The truth is that people in this country are sick to death of the way public services have been treated over the past three decades. We have the nationalised train companies of other countries running our train services. We have multinational energy companies fleecing the old and poor in this country who are trying to keep their lights on and their houses warm. We have foreign postal companies undermining the universal service obligation. We have water companies—dealing with the basis of human life—that do not know where the people they provide the service to live. We have a coal industry where 200,000 people lost their jobs and communities were devastated, and we buy in coal from some of the most unstable regimes on earth. And now we worry that the health service will be fragmented before our very eyes.
	That is why people do not trust, and are very worried about, these negotiations. That is why they are saying to us, “We are sick to death of seeing privateers feast on the goodies of privatisation. If TTIP is another opportunity for them to do the same, we do not want it.” The Government—and my party, if it wants to get behind this—have to say to the people of this country, “We are going into these negotiations in the proper manner. We will open them up to people in this House and Europe”—MEPs from all parties have said they are concerned about the lack of scrutiny—“We will do it properly. We will come back to the House and the country and say, ‘This agreement is sound. It covers your concerns. It works in these areas, but we will not allow it to work in these other areas.’” If we do not do that, TTIP will not deserve the support of ourselves, the nation or the EU.

Julian Smith: I rise to challenge the premise of this rather cynical motion, which is yet another example of a cynical approach to
	scaremongering on many aspects of what is, in essence, an exceptionally positive deal for our country. The motion seeks to add to the many worries that our constituents are writing to us about, and it completely avoids looking at the work that has been done over the past 18 months since the deal began being discussed.
	If we look at the press release—

Mark Durkan: rose—

Julian Smith: I will give way shortly. If we look at the press release from the sponsor of this motion, we see that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) ends by saying:
	“We need to engage responsibly to deliver regulation of trade and to avoid the social and economic Darwinism that is the inevitable result of disengagement.”
	I say to him that there has been nothing but engagement from this place on this deal. This is the third debate in this Chamber about TTIP. The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has already had one and it is to have a second. TTIP was discussed during the Bill on the NHS promoted by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). There has been a House of Lords—

Andy Slaughter: rose—

Julian Smith: There has been a House of Lords report on TTIP and a Government response to it. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills has interrogated Ministers about TTIP. The all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment, of which I am the deputy chair and which the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) chairs, has had multiple meetings, in Brussels, London and America, with the negotiator, with Members of Congress, with members of the US Administration and with the EU trade negotiator, Ignacio Garcia. There has been nothing but engagement, both from Brussels and from our Government on TTIP.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Smith: I will give way later. On the issue of parliamentary scrutiny when the deal is done, I ask hon. Members to look at a letter written by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) on 22 September, in which he says:
	“The UK Parliament, including the House of Lords…will have a full opportunity to scrutinise the deal before it is finalised.”
	There does not seem to be anything but clarity in that statement.
	On the investor-state dispute mechanism, we have heard earlier that the EU has made it clear on multiple occasions that the freedom of national Governments to regulate would be explicitly protected. The investor-state dispute settlement provisions being discussed cannot overturn policy laws; the purpose is to protect our investors from discriminatory treatment by protectionist Governments. There are 90 other examples of ISDS in deals we have around the world. As we have heard, there have been two cases against Britain, neither of which was successful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Smith: I will give way later. The Commission itself has consulted carefully on the issue, and that consultation will be coming to a conclusion shortly. On the NHS, the chair of the all-party group, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, has had a letter from the European Commission.
	It says that,
	“we can already state with confidence that any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”
	Our Government have made it clear that there is no threat to the NHS from TTIP. The focus is on allowing innovation between companies in the EU and the US on health-related issues. It is not about changing policy on free-at-the-point-of-delivery national services.

Andy Slaughter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Smith: I will give way later. What surprises me about the hon. Member for Swansea West, who at the start of this Parliament wanted to be head of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, is that he has not given any focus to the benefits of TTIP. This is our biggest export partner; the biggest trading relationship that we have. The huge focus of our attention here should be on saying and explaining that this deal will mean hundreds of pounds less for British consumers when they buy their jeans, cars and other products. It will primarily benefit not big corporations, but small businesses—the businesses that we have in our constituencies. TTIP will made trade easier with the most easy market to trade with—that which speaks our language—the United States of America. I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a ridiculous motion. He should focus on the benefits of the partnership. It is a key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan and he should be celebrating this deal when it comes to a conclusion.

Eilidh Whiteford: May I start by commending the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for bringing this debate to the House? Like others, I have had hundreds of constituents in touch with me about TTIP, particularly about the potential implications for the NHS. That brings home to me not just how preciously people hold their access to health care and how anxious they are about the future of the NHS, but that we are debating a treaty that does not actually exist yet, and that we are not yet in a position to analyse or assess. That is exactly why this process should be open to more effective scrutiny now, and we need to have a much wider debate.
	Having waded through some of the papers released by the European institutions—the Commission and others—in recent days, I do not think that they provide definitive answers to the key questions I am being asked, and we really need better answers. When it comes down to it, we need an explicit exclusion of public health care and associated services from TTIP.
	Ministers must try to understand why there is such public concern. The negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy, and Ministers have failed to address fully the questions posed by the devolved Governments that
	arise as a consequence of the distinctive structures and policies of the NHS in the home nations. We need more transparency in this process and cast iron assurances that the treaty will not be a route to the backdoor privatisation of our NHS.
	The bottom line is that Scotland must not be bound by a trade deal that could undermine public ownership of our NHS and our ability to make accountable, democratic decisions about public health care and that could usher in creeping clandestine privatisation.

Robert Walter: I do not know whether the hon. Lady received the same letter as I did on 19 December from the Secretary of State for Business. It said:
	“And the new Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, has also stated explicitly that ‘public service, including health, education and water management, are not on the agenda.’”

Eilidh Whiteford: I have read those documents, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. What we have had repeatedly are assertions. I read the Commission’s latest publications, which do appear to indicate that state monopolies will be protected. But elsewhere in the text, relating to services of general economic interest—namely utilities and public services—it says that they would be governed by normal competition law
	“in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance in law, or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to the enterprises in question.”
	That does seem to water down the seemingly categorical assurances we have heard elsewhere. In reality, it is not at all clear that the requirement will protect public services in the absence of an explicit opt out.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady heard the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) quote many assurances, which came from many different sources. Does she believe that they are any more reliable than the promises of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) to give way “later”?

Eilidh Whiteford: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an astute and telling point.
	We need to know that there will be no obligation to open up the NHS in Scotland to US private providers, even if that is what England’s NHS decides to do, and we need to know that there is no chance whatever that the treaty will expose the Scottish Government to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.
	People’s legitimate fears are not being assuaged. The Commission has sounded a note of caution regarding these mechanisms, because they are being misused around the world. We have seen an escalation in the number of aggressive cases being brought against countries that have made perfectly legitimate decisions. The fact that it has only happened a couple of times here does not mean that it will not happen more in future. That is why we need to debate the issues now.
	I appreciate that Members will hold profoundly different views about the wisdom of opening the NHS to privatisation; indeed, some Members might see it as a one-way street, but in Scotland we have chosen a different direction of travel, and we need to be sure that that will not be derailed by complacency over the drafting of a
	trade agreement. I am also of the view that any disputes need to be resolved in our domestic courts, not through ISDS mechanisms.
	Before I finish, I want to address some of the implications of TTIP for Scottish agriculture. There are undoubtedly potential benefits from better market access for our food and drink producers, but a number of non-tariff issues have potential downsides. My questions to the Government today focus on how they plan to address and mitigate those issues. I am particularly concerned about our livestock sector—which is key to the economy of my constituency—where risks as well as opportunities are likely to emerge from TTIP.
	For example, Aberdeenshire produces some of the best beef in the world—Scotch beef that commands premium prices, is fully traceable and is produced to the highest standards of animal welfare. US beef is notably cheaper to produce. Producers in the US have some economies of scale, climate, and less rigorous compliance regimes, and they are allowed to use hormone growth promoters that are not permitted in the EU. I would like an assurance from the Minister today that TTIP will not lead to a dumbing down of production values, whether in the way animals are farmed or in the quality of the food that ends up on our plates.
	It has also been suggested that protected geographic indicator labels could be a stumbling block within the TTIP negotiations. For many of our most iconic food and drink products, their origin is a core factor in the success of their brand and, critically, in the premium price it is able to command. Protected geographic indicators are essential to sustaining the livelihood of smaller-scale producers who rely on the high quality and uniqueness of their product to add value. Will the Government take the opportunity today to outline what they will be doing to ensure that PGIs are not undermined in the TTIP process, and assure Scottish beef and lamb producers that the markets for their distinctive premium products will not be harmed by opening the market to cheaper imports?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend makes a good point. From my own experience, I would want to ensure that Stornoway black pudding, for instance, had its protected status maintained.

Eilidh Whiteford: Marag is, as my hon. Friend knows, the food of the gods, and any steps should be taken to protect that vital aspect of our culture and economy.
	Governments need to legislate and regulate in the public interest—not in the interests of corporations or shareholders, but in the interests of citizens. As things stand, there are entirely legitimate fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership could significantly restrict our ability to do that. Until the Government can provide meaningful and detailed assurances, public scepticism is unlikely to be assuaged, and I urge the Government to take a lot more action to spell out the detail of how it will affect different sectors of our economy.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I hope to be able to respond to some of
	the concerns she voiced. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on initiating this important debate.
	I share the sentiment, which was expressed by many hon. Members, that trade is the cornerstone of our national wealth. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) speak about its impact on our economy. Without that trade and our national wealth, there would not be funding for vital services such as our NHS; it is that long-term economic plan that will guarantee its future. However, I would like to speak today about the NHS and express some of my concerns.
	The Leader of the Opposition has spoken of his desire to weaponise the NHS. It is shameful in itself, but it also detracts from some of the genuine arguments and important issues that we need to raise about health within TTIP.
	Initially, I would like to clear up the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They are important and I would not support the deal if I thought that it would have the effects she outlined, but I think that they have been rather used as part of that weapon to try to damn this partnership and to damn the Government’s record. That is regrettable.
	After reading the letter from the European Commission about the NHS, I wrote back because I wanted to clarify some points. As Chair of the Select Committee on Health, I heard back from Jean-Luc Demarty, the director-general for trade. He wrote to me on 11 December and a copy of that letter is available on the Health Committee’s website if people want to look at it in detail. He made it absolutely clear that all publicly funded health services, including NHS services, would be protected under TTIP.
	I pressed him further on that point, asking about the definition of publicly funded health services—in other words, would they include organisations such as those in the third sector? He was very clear that as long as the services are publicly funded, it does not matter how they are delivered. That is an important point of clarity. He also made the point that any investor-state dispute settlement provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS. In other words, that deals with the concerns that have been raised that this is somehow a one-way street and that no future Government would be able to change policy. He is very clear on that point and I urge Members to look at his letter. The issue of ratchet clauses is also very important, and the ratchet clause will not apply in this case.

Jeremy Corbyn: If an incoming Government decided to terminate a contract in the NHS or in the public social care sector under which that company claimed that a very large investment had been made in building a care home or something similar, would the company not be able to use TTIP to prosecute the Government for the potential loss of investment?

Sarah Wollaston: Already within domestic contract law there are provisions that mean that one cannot arbitrarily reverse a contract. A state would be able to announce that it was changing policy and moving forward, but the
	point about TTIP is that it works on both sides of the Atlantic. We would not wish to have British companies arbitrarily lose their investment in the US. It is about that; it is not some conspiracy of an evil empire, which is how it has been portrayed. I think that that would be a reasonable process.

Margot James: May I make the point that an ISDS tribunal is empowered to award compensation for genuine loss but is not empowered to overturn policy or national regulation?

Sarah Wollaston: Indeed, and that is the point that we want to make clear.
	The concern is legitimate and if the NHS were threatened by TTIP we should be explicit about that, but it is not. We need to be clear about that and it would be helpful if Opposition Members withdrew the insinuation that is constantly being put out to our constituents that this is a conspiracy to do so.
	I also pressed the Commission on whether it would be sensible for the Government explicitly to ask to exclude the NHS, and it could not have been clearer that it was not necessary because it was going to do so itself. May we please bring that aspect of the debate to an end and focus on the issues that matter?

Andy Slaughter: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Wollaston: I am afraid I do not have time to take further interventions, so I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	The issues I think are important are those to do with public health in areas such as smoking and alcohol. Other Members have pointed out the impact on the Uruguayan Government of their being sued by a tobacco company. The company’s profits dwarf the domestic product of Uruguay. We cannot allow that to happen. This has serious implications. I would like the Minister to respond specifically on whether, during these negotiations, the tobacco industry—an industry that kills half its customers—can be specifically prevented from using the investor state dispute procedures in such a manner.
	I would also like protections in relation to alcohol. Of course, part of our transatlantic trade should legitimately cover alcohol, a product enjoyed by many. However, the Scotch Whisky Association has been able to use legal mechanisms to delay the proposed minimum pricing measures which are desperately needed in Scotland and which I fully support. I would like further detail on what measures the Government propose to protect public health as TTIP goes forward.
	Finally, I would like to make a point on behalf of transition town Totnes. Will the Minister explain the implications of this for our obligations under the climate change legislation? The transition towns movement has done a huge amount of work on local food networks and sustainability. Will he assure me that he will continue to look after the interests of those vital food networks and make sure that that they are protected alongside trade? We need to strike a balance. I know that it is a difficult issue, but it is important.

Liz McInnes: In my previous employment as an NHS scientist, I was extremely concerned about the implications of TTIP for our NHS,
	and for all our public services, and I remain so. In my new job, I have been contacted by many constituents expressing their concern about TTIP, which is a subject on which the public appear to be very well informed.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Members of Parliament are not putting pressure on their constituents, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) claimed; rather, constituents are saying that they are concerned. They are concerned, for example, that small businesses are being disadvantaged in comparison with large businesses, that monopolies are being encouraged among pharmaceutical companies, and that the NHS is in danger of privatisation. We have a duty to give them an explanation. There is huge disquiet out there among the public, and we ought to address it. There is terrible complacency among Government Members about this.

Liz McInnes: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; he has pre-empted what I was about to say. I am not going out scaremongering; my constituents and my previous colleagues are expressing to me their real and legitimate concerns about this agreement.
	As I said, this is a subject on which the public appear to be very well informed. That surprises me, given that a major concern expressed to me is that the negotiations seem to be taking place in secret. Perhaps there is a lesson here: the more secretive a deal appears to be, the more effort people will make to try to seek out the truth. If ever we needed an argument for openness and transparency, this is it.
	We have already heard a lot about the ISDS mechanism, which is causing my constituents and ex-colleagues major concern, particularly in relation to our public services—specifically, our NHS. People are telling me— again, this is not about me going out scaremongering—that they are really worried that this could result in private companies seeking compensation from our public bodies for loss of potential earnings. We have already heard about mechanisms in agreements in other countries whereby those countries are being sued for things such as regulating medicine and energy prices, raising minimum wages, and putting health warnings on cigarette packets, to name but a few. There is a real fear that this mechanism is not about enforcing contracts but about giving businesses huge new powers to intimidate policy makers. There is major concern that the ISDS provisions could lead to enforced privatisation of our NHS and other public services. Governments have a right to be able to legislate in the public interest, and that should be protected in any dispute resolution mechanisms.
	The European Commission has instigated several changes that have improved the transparency of the agreement, and that is welcome. However, it is right that the Commission has decided temporarily to suspend negotiation on ISDS until the final stages of the negotiations. I urge the Government to use this opportunity to call for greater transparency on exclusion for legislation that is in the public interest, such as that relating to the NHS.
	An online consultation by the European Commission has revealed huge public opposition to TTIP. Again, this is not about me or any other member of my party going around scaremongering. The Commission received an unprecedented 150,000 responses, more than a third
	of which were from the UK, mainly opposing TTIP and many calling for the NHS and other public services to be exempt from it.
	Other countries have sought to exempt areas from the agreement, but this Government have not done so. Instead, their position on the NHS and TTIP has been muddled. They have told the British Medical Association that the NHS will be “protected”, and the Department of Health has said:
	“We have no intention of allowing the TTIP to dictate the opening up of NHS services to further competition, and it will not do so.”
	However, the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Livingston, said in September that TTIP would not have any impact on the NHS and therefore the UK negotiation team would not be pushing for its exclusion. Those mixed messages are of great concern and are troubling. This Government need to commit to the NHS being exempt from the final TTIP agreement and look carefully at its impact on other public services.

Margot James: I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing the debate and agree about the ongoing need for scrutiny of this and other important trade deals.
	The US is the UK’s biggest single trading partner, accounting for nearly £90 billion of exports in 2013. With both economies doing so well, the opportunity afforded by TTIP has huge potential, with the right safeguards in place, for growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
	At present, a lot of non-tariff barriers, as well as tariffs, are making it impossible for some companies—and far too difficult for others—to export to the US. The food and drink industry is our largest manufacturing sector, but many of its brands are too little seen in American supermarkets. The cost for food and drink companies in complying with US tariffs and regulations is equivalent to a tax of 13%. That is the tip of an iceberg that the trade negotiations are seeking to address. As other Members have said, if successful the trade agreement will generate GDP growth of £10 billion a year to the UK.
	In my region, the automotive industry alone estimates that its exports to the US would grow by £1.4 billion more than would be the case without a deal. Production would increase by 7%, which would create jobs in the supply chain to the bigger companies that are so important to my constituency.
	Building exports to the US is a sure-fire way to create growth and jobs. Last year I visited a company called Vee Bee Filtration in my constituency. Some 90% of the filtration systems it manufactures are exported, mainly to the US. It got started in the US with help from UK Export Finance in 2012, and since then sales have grown exponentially.
	The growth that will be generated by a free trade agreement will benefit not just companies big and small, but employees, people taking up new jobs, families and consumers. The benefit in money terms to households in my constituency is estimated to be the equivalent of £400 a year.
	Many of my constituents travel to the US for work and pleasure, and they often express frustration at how much cheaper consumer goods in many sectors are
	there. So far, I have talked about the benefits in terms of increased exports, but there are benefits for consumers from the potential removal of EU tariffs on American goods in that cars imported from the US would be 10% cheaper and jeans would be 12% cheaper. A free trade agreement, properly negotiated, will improve people’s standards of living in many ways, so it is very important to overcome any barriers to its successful conclusion.
	I am not complacent about the difficulties. I agree that the negotiations should be subject to ongoing scrutiny. I have mentioned that the food and drink industry faces particularly costly barriers. I want the elimination of tariffs, but it is important to do so without jeopardising food safety, or the rights of Governments to establish public health policies, such as to prevent the increased use of trans fats in packaged foods.
	Some of my constituents have raised concerns about the possible impact of TTIP on public services, particularly the NHS. I commend the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his work as chair of the all-party group on TTIP, and for the reassurance he sought and has received directly from the European Commission on many points.
	The Commission has confirmed that existing EU bilateral trade agreements either exclude or make specific reservations for the delivery of publicly funded services. Furthermore, the letter to the right hon. Gentleman reassured us that all member states are free to maintain measures, and even to adopt new ones, to control access to their health service by foreign suppliers—without constraints—under existing EU trade agreements. The Commission has confirmed in writing that the EU will not change its approach to health services in negotiations for TTIP. The provision of publicly funded health services will not be affected by the ISDS regime either. The Commission has guaranteed the rights of Governments to legislate in the public interest and to prevent unjustified claims. Virtually all of our 94 bilateral investment treaties include an ISDS regime, and the UK Government have never lost a case brought under the regime. Many safeguards are therefore already in place.
	Members should be more positive about the benefits in jobs, growth and the standard of living of our constituents that TTIP offers, and they should grasp this opportunity, but with open eyes.

Sheila Gilmore: Had it not been for a great deal of campaigning, I suspect that we would not have been able to debate either TTIP or many other things. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that there has been plenty of parliamentary debate of this issue. There has been some debate, and perhaps the amount is increasing, but it is largely because people have raised the issue and kept campaigning on it that we have got to this stage. The Government have not initiated the debate or said what they are trying to achieve, and it seems that Ministers at times answer questions only grudgingly.
	When TTIP was first raised with me a considerable time ago—a year ago, if not more—by members of a constituency peace and justice group that is involved in international development issues, I confess that I had
	not heard about it. I did not know what they were talking about, and I had to research and find out about it; it was not on our agenda in this place. We must give credit to such people, even if we sometimes think that they get particularly exercised about such issues. I am firmly convinced that we would not be having this debate had it not been for them.
	We have to ask our Government: if we do not need to worry about such issues, what is the problem with stating that explicitly? Some months ago, when the Prime Minister made a statement on a recent summit, he said, “No, we don’t need to worry about the health service in all of this.” I asked him whether that could be explicitly stated in the agreement. I did not get a clear answer that that was his position. It was more, “Well, it’ll be all right because it is understood by everyone in some way that it will not be included.” If we are saying that the health service and public services are safe and will not be undermined by the treaty in any way, there is no harm in making that explicit in the wording of the treaty, because apparently there is no problem.
	I am concerned about what constitutes a public service: it is not just the NHS; there are many other public services. Many countries, including the UK, have a mixed provision of services, and whether we think that is good, bad or indifferent, it exists. For example, a lot of social care services are provided by private companies and sometimes third sector companies. Whether good or bad, are those covered by the exclusion for public services? We must be clear about that because more and more is being provided by private companies that, perhaps rather oddly, describe themselves as “public service companies” and provide a variety of services in various fields. We must be clear about the definition of public services—I think the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) suggested that such a definition should exist for something that is publicly funded, but we need that to be explicit in the treaty.

Sarah Wollaston: To reassure the hon. Lady, it was not that I said the definition should exist, but that I was reassured by Jean-Luc Demarty that it would exist. It is about who funds the service, not who provides it.

Sheila Gilmore: That would be clear if such a definition was in the treaty and there were no caveats, provisos or wiggle room. The same point applies to opportunities that might exist for companies to sue outwith our normal courts. I agree that if there is a clear breach of contract under our existing law, people have the right to take action to protect their financial interests. We do not always like that and it sometimes causes problems when a Government change, or indeed change their course, but on the whole we accept that because we can see clearly where it is happening, what criteria are being applied, and it is publicly reported. That is the concern about the potential tribunals.
	The reason often given for having special tribunals to deal with such issues is that certain countries with whom we may be trading may not have a legal system that we trust to uphold the agreement and protect our traders. That is not the case with this treaty, given the countries involved. If that was the derivation of this provision, I argue that we do not need it, and if we do not need it, it should not be there. It is not good enough to say, “It will be there, but it will not cover this or that;
	it will be all right because we have always won in the past.” If we do not need the treaty because we are equal partners—perhaps not entirely equal, but much more equal than has been the case with some trade treaties—we do not need a special regime. I do not say that there will never be a need to litigate. If some of our companies felt that they were being barred illegitimately from the United States despite the terms of the treaty, they might want to litigate, but I argue that the opportunity to do that through normal court processes in the United States exists and we do not need anything special.
	This treaty must be as public and open as possible. That is the purpose of the motion, but it must also be ongoing. The people who contact us are deeply concerned and want to know that their interests are being protected. The onus is on the Government of the day who are negotiating the treaty to bring it back at regular intervals and update us on what is happening and what provisions they have managed to include. They should not expect us and our constituents to accept some reassurance that things are all right and we should not be worried or frightened. If we have nothing to be frightened of, the Government have nothing to be afraid of in keeping us fully abreast of negotiations.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing the debate.
	TTIP, if it goes ahead, will be the biggest and boldest free trade agreement of all time. Like it or hate it, it is huge and it will impact on our constituents in any number of ways. It is therefore welcome that we are discussing it, albeit on the very margins of the parliamentary calendar, but we are nothing like as involved as we should be. If trends continue, we will find ourselves bound into a staggeringly far-reaching agreement without having given it anything like the kind of scrutiny it merits. We should be grateful to the public, both here and abroad, who have understood the significance of TTIP. Well over 1 million European citizens have signed a petition calling for, among other things, greater transparency. In response, the EU has reluctantly agreed to publish some, but not all, the texts relating to the TTIP negotiations. At this stage, no one can talk with any real certainty about the minutiae of TTIP—that is just not possible—but we can see the direction of travel. For my part, I think it is incredibly worrying.
	The most obvious concern relates to the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which has already been discussed. Up until a few days ago, it was an absolutely core component of the proposal. I welcome that public pressure is forcing a rethink on that for now. The ISDS effectively allows foreign businesses to sue Governments for policy decisions that impact on their future profits. That would happen not through our domestic courts, but through new investor tribunals.
	The ISDS is not, as many hon. Members have pointed out, a new concept. It exists in other free trade agreements. There are many examples of countries having been sued successfully for policy changes they have made: limiting coal mining in sensitive areas in Indonesia; attempts to raise standards for coal power plants in Germany; attempts to impose oil spill controls in South America and so on. The best known example, which we have already heard about, relates to Australia being sued by
	tobacco giants for taking measures to dissuade people from smoking. There are many other examples. Canada has been sued 35 times under current ISDS mechanisms. In one appalling case, Canada was sued by Ethyl Corporation for $250 million, via an ISDS mechanism, after it banned the highly toxic chemical MMT, which is an additive for fuel. Despite unequivocal evidence of harm—no one disputes the scientific case—Canada not only had to settle with Ethyl but reverse its ban. I accept that the ISDS has a role to play in limited circumstances. It exists to help companies do business in volatile countries with unreliable judiciaries, but the mechanism being proposed in TTIP will apply here, not in Venezuela or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	I have asked the Government repeatedly for any examples of EU companies in the US, or US companies in the EU, being discriminated against by the courts of the host nation in the past five years. The answer is always the same:
	“The Government does not have access to relevant information.”
	If we do not have that information, how on earth can the Government make the case for ISDS? One fundamental problem with ISDS is that its very existence would act as a permanent inhibitor for legislators. Where new evidence emerges, for example, of the dangers of a pesticide, Governments would have to think twice before introducing a new regulation. Essentially, it will give the companies that are big enough to use this system the power to freeze policy evolution and buy what is effectively a risk-free environment.
	The power that vests in giant international corporations is hard to exaggerate, but it does not stop there. I understand that massive public pressure has meant that ISDS has been suspended and will not be part of next month’s negotiations. I do not believe that the issue has been resolved but, with or without ISDS, I believe TTIP is still structurally geared towards satisfying the interests of multinational corporations above all else. I do not see this as a question of trade or no trade; this is a question of basic democracy.
	Let us consider the so-called regulatory co-operation councils being proposed by the EU as part of TTIP. They involve formally giving stakeholders early opportunities to intervene in the regulatory process; that is, seeing proposed legalisation before it is handled by Parliaments. Hon. Members do not need to be told what kind of stakeholders will end up on that council. It is worth considering what changes we might see under TTIP. What is it that big business wants? Free trade agreements are normally about reducing trade tariffs—taxes on imports and exports. There are very few tariffs between us and the US, so the focus will be on standards. In many respects, it is hard to imagine a harmonisation of standards between the US and EU resulting in better standards for us.
	Food is, I think, the best example. Our standards are undeniably higher than the standards that apply in the US on a whole range of issues; hormones in beef, milk and pork, the use of steroids, chlorine-treated chicken meat and the clear labelling of processed food. We have a fundamentally different approach. We are told by our Government that food standards are safe and that nothing will happen. Try telling that to US agribusiness giants who have been engaging in an orgy of lobbying and have very high expectations.

Mark Durkan: On food, the hon. Gentleman will know that many in the food sector are very keen to trade significantly but really do worry about the implications of the treaty and the terms under which it is done. They feel that it will potentially undermine them rather than giving them a floor of confidence on which they can trade.

Zac Goldsmith: I very much agree and the same is true of chemical regulation. In Europe, our approach, while being very far from perfect, puts an emphasis on the precautionary principle. Again, we are told that our approach will not be affected, but there is plenty of evidence—including today—that that is not true. For example, the EU proposed in 2013 that endocrine-disrupting chemicals—chemicals that mess with the sexual development of children—should be banned, at least until they are proven to be safe. For the record, there is no scientific doubt at all about the effect of endocrine disruptors; none at all. But on the back of savage lobbying by the chemical industry, the US Government weighed in and pressed the EU to consider the impact of their proposals on fledgling trade negotiations. Bingo; a few months later, the proposals were suspended. The lobby groups had won. Our Government, to their shame, were involved in that process; the first European Government to step forward on the side of the lobby groups and say, “Yes, let’s back off and not jeopardise our trade deals.”

Geraint Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the precautionary principle in the EU. Does he agree that there is a risk to air and water safety from fracking and that we will get sub-standard environmental controls, as there are in the United States, through the back door of TTIP, with ISDS?

Zac Goldsmith: I am going to skip the question of fracking as I am running out of time but, for the record, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
	So why are we moving heaven and earth for this vast trade deal? We are told that it is about jobs and growth, and that Europe might benefit by £100 billion. But there are any number of reports that say the opposite. But it is all nonsense. We have no idea. The history of these sorts of predictions in relation to big free trade deals is pretty woeful. We were told that the north American free trade agreement, for example, would create a million new jobs. There is more or less a consensus now that it cost America 870,000 jobs.
	What specific problems will TTIP resolve that merit ceding our sovereignty in this spectacular fashion? I ask Members of my own party specifically; why is it not okay to hand the reins of our ancient democracy to an unelected EU bureaucracy, but absolutely fine and great to allow those same unelected Eurocrats to delegate our democracy to multinational corporations?
	I wonder how much support there would be in my party or on the Opposition Benches for this treaty if people fully and truly understood the implications. I remember interviewing the famous consumer activist Ralph Nader for The Ecologist about NAFTA. He told me that he was reaching the end of the campaign and that Congress was going to give it a green light. He did not believe that anyone in Congress had read the report. He said that he would give a cash reward to anyone
	who could answer his questions. Months passed. Finally, Senator Brown of Colorado accepted the challenge and got every question right, to everyone’s amazement. He then turned to the cameras and said that having read the report he was going to vote against it as he could see how dangerous it was.
	I believe that any self-respecting Member of this House should demand–no, insist—not only transparency and scrutiny by this House, but the right to approve or reject this treaty before our country is bound to it.

Phil Wilson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing a debate on an issue that is important for the future economy of the UK and of Europe and for globalisation. We should broadly welcome the principles behind TTIP but obviously we need to take into consideration a lot of the issues raised by Members, especially the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and to ensure that we have continued parliamentary scrutiny.
	Any trade agreement that can give the UK and Europe greater access to US markets can only be welcomed. There are obviously certain caveats to that and I will come on to them. I believe that this agreement has the potential to help regulate a globalised economy so that it is pro-business but also pro-fairness. It is also critical that we take part in the negotiations from the start and continue with them because we cannot close the door on the world. To be opposed to TTIP as a matter of principle without any regard to jobs and investment opportunities is counter-productive. It would seem to me to be fundamentally wrong to say no to something before the negotiations have really started and a framework decided upon.
	I shall say a few things about the importance of US-UK trade and investment. US investment in the UK in 2013 was $571 billion. UK investment in the US was $519 billion. US exports to the UK were $107 billion, while US imports from the UK were £101 billion. With $1 trillion in investment and £204 billion each year in trade, the UK-US economic relationship is one of the largest and most important anywhere in the world. The US and the UK are each other’s largest foreign investors, and this investment supports over 1 million jobs in each country, and the Government estimate that TTIP could boost the UK economy by as much as £10 billion a year.
	As far as trade and investment is concerned, the UK can benefit the most through TTIP in comparison with any other EU economy. The impact on the north-east, where my constituency is based, could be significant, too. Some £2.4 billion of north-east exports go to our single biggest market—the US—which is equivalent to 66% of all north-east air freight. The North East chamber of commerce estimates that 42% of its members want to export to the US in the next 24 months, while the trend for the numbers of exporters in the north-east is increasing every year to the point where more than 2,500 businesses are exporting to Europe. Over 200 medium and large US-owned companies in the north-east exports products around the world.
	US-owned companies such as Sevcon, Caterpillar, AAF Ltd, Esterline Darchem, GE Wellstream and Union Electric Steel are all based in the north-east of England. Newcastle airport is starting direct flights to New York
	to prove the significance of the north-east/US relationship. Any deal that can bring down business tariffs and raise standards by harmonising regulation, including the labour market, and that can promote trade and investment can only be worth negotiating.
	It is not only US companies that can benefit; UK-based companies can, too. I am thinking of Kromek in my constituency; it is based at Netpark, which is a science park. It produces systems for airline security and state-of-the-art X-ray technology, which has great trade significance for the US.
	There is obviously some scepticism about the deal, especially concerning ISDS. However, EU Trade Commissioner Malstr?m has said:
	“Let me be clear: the TTIP that the European Commission will negotiate and present for ratification will be an agreement that is good for citizens—good for growth and jobs here in Europe. It will be an agreement which strengthens Europe’s influence in the world, and which would help us protect our strict standards. The European Commission would never even consider an agreement which would lower our standards or limit our governments’ right to regulate. Neither would EU Member States, nor the European Parliament.”
	A letter from another Commissioner to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who chairs the all-party group on TTIP, says on the question of ISDS:
	“We can already state with confidence that any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”
	I hope that this information clearly demonstrates that there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today or for changes to the NHS in future as a result of TTIP.
	It seems to me that the problem is not with TTIP, but with the Government. Judith Kirton-Darling, Labour MEP for the north-east, has said:
	“The European Commission mandate prevents it from including services that are still publicly funded…TTIP must guarantee our full ability to provide any service publicly if the British people choose to do so. The coalition government claim that the NHS is safe but refuse to specifically exclude it from the draft text. That can only lead…to the conclusion that the biggest threat to our NHS is not TTIP but the Tory-led government.”
	Finally, let me say that TTIP is something on which we have to negotiate. It was Clem Attlee 70 years ago who got us involved with the general agreement on tariffs and trade because he wanted to regulate the global economy. That was 70 years ago—and we want an opportunity to do exactly the same now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am afraid that I must reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to five minutes,

Caroline Lucas: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I will of course give his motion my full backing.
	Eighteen months ago, TTIP was little more than an obscure European Union acronym. Barely a word of caution had been uttered in the House, and barely a headline had been written about the risks that it poses to our democracy. How fast things change when people
	realise how much is at stake! I have received hundreds of e-mails from residents in my constituency who are concerned about TTIP—and yes, one of the things that concerns them is the national health service. I believe that TTIP and its investor protection provisions still pose an unacceptable threat to the ability of future Governments to, for example, repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and reverse creeping privatisation in the public health sector.
	We have heard assurances from the European Union, and from advocates of TTIP on both sides of the House, that such fears are unfounded, but I think it significant that, less than a month ago, the British Medical Association confirmed that it was continuing to lobby against the inclusion of health in TTIP. We are not helped by the fact that the Commission seems to convey a whole set of mixed messages when it talks about the issue. I think that, when that is added to the general secrecy that surrounds all this, we have grounds to be deeply concerned.
	However, the case against TTIP, like the concern felt by my constituents, goes far beyond that. It comes down to an issue that many Members have raised today, the issue of the investor state dispute settlement. People are increasingly opposed to an agreement that could fatally undermine democratic law making in relation to food standards, animal welfare and environmental protection. Workers’ rights, consumer protection and education policy are also in the firing line.
	Much has come to light about the true nature of the investor state dispute mechanism. Its central purpose is to give private companies new rights to sue Governments, in secret tribunals, for passing laws or regulations in the public interest if that might get in the way of making higher profits. I am not the only person to say that. A rampantly pro-TTIP briefing from a lobby group representing the City—bankers, private equity firms and so forth—is quite illuminating. It emphasises the central importance of so-called investor rights, and makes it clear that TTIP would
	“set a precedent for future trade and investment agreements” .
	Perhaps most alarming is what it says about how those investor rights should be upheld, namely:
	“Some critics have suggested that investors should seek redress through the judicial system of the country where the investment is made before asserting a claim in investor-state arbitration. Such a requirement undermines the very reason why ISDS is included in most investment agreements—to depoliticise the issue in dispute and to provide for a neutral panel to examine whether a host government has breached its treaty obligations.”
	Most of us would probably have assumed that our own judicial system, along with those in all the other member states, was designed precisely to guarantee neutrality and freedom from political interference. Why should we need a separate, corporate-only mechanism? No one has explained why it is required. The idea that it somehow depoliticises the issue strikes me as completely wrong. I believe that the aim is actually to remove issues from public scrutiny.
	The briefing appears to suggest that the current judicial system with which we all live in our various member states is fine for our constituents—those who can still gain access to it after the cuts in legal aid—but private companies are somehow entitled to something that they should think is better. I find that disregard for the independence of our judiciary incredibly worrying, and
	there is no justification for it. Pieter de Pous, the policy director of the European Environmental Bureau and a member of the EU’s TTIP advisory group, has said:
	“The EU and US have well-developed legal systems which have more than adequately handled foreign direct investment until now. ISDS would only lead to the erosion of laws that deliver public benefits, notably those that protect consumers’ and workers’ rights and the environment.”
	I am still waiting to hear from someone, in the Chamber or elsewhere, who can explain why we need a separate corporate-led dispute settlement mechanism. I am glad that it is on hold—and that is not despite but because of huge civil society outrage in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union. I think that we should be grateful to the campaigners who have helped to put the issue centre stage, and that we should not be complacent until the mechanism has been ditched completely. This week, the results of the European Commission’s public consultation showed that more than 97% of the 150,000 respondents opposed its inclusion in TTIP.
	Even if we spent the rest of this so-called zombie Parliament scrutinising TTIP in minute detail, the ISDS would simply not be an acceptable proposition. Fashionable as it is—in some circles—to have a pop at the EU, let us make sure that we point the finger in the right direction. It is the Commission on which we should focus: it should be listening to the public, not dismissing and overruling them.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this debate and also on his work in the European Scrutiny Committee whenever we have had the opportunity to meet Foreign Ministers from other EU countries and MEPs. I should stress, however, that TTIP is not being decided by the ESC, and that is one of the big concerns we all have. I am very pro-European, and I think we have done an enormous amount across Europe to raise uniform standards for manufacturers so they are not different in every country but protect the consumer, but this agreement seems to be rushed through with huge secrecy, whereas normally there is significant consultation.
	I am certainly not against a trade agreement. Trade is important and we want to make sure that the way forward is through trade, but we must get the balance of power right between big business and democratically elected Governments. That is the key point here, particularly in respect of the ISDS mechanism. It is only through public pressure that we have had this pause for consultation on the mechanism and the report that was produced this week. I am pleased to hear Commissioner Malmström say:
	“The consultation clearly shows that there is huge scepticism against the ISDS. We need to have an open and frank discussion about investment protection and ISDS in TTIP with EU governments, with the European Parliament and civil society before launching any policy recommendations in this area.”
	We need to make sure that happens.
	We must use this opportunity to rethink the whole issue of ISDS. Numerous examples have been given by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has just left his seat, such as
	on the issue of forcing the reversal of environmental legislation. We have courts and the US has courts, so there are perfectly legitimate ways in which breaches of contract can be raised. The question is: why do we need the ISDS mechanism at all in this trade agreement?
	We in the UK strive to develop high food quality and animal welfare standards and try to have a level playing field across Europe. Recently, UK poultry farmers, who have implemented higher standards for cages for hens here, have raised concerns that some European countries are dragging their feet, thereby distorting the level playing field, but obviously we will get that put right by the EU. Our standards are in many respects higher than those in the US, and the great danger in TTIP is that the standards in the US and the EU might be mutually recognised, so we would have to accept US goods even if they did not meet our standards. That would create an enormous problem for us. It would create a very uneven playing field and the obvious solution for many farmers here would be to want to downgrade standards to meet US standards. It is very unlikely that that would be working the other way round because of the pressure of price.
	If anyone thinks this is just some myth we have dreamed up, we should note that the US Agriculture Secretary has said the EU needs to
	“rethink its current bans on chlorine-washed chicken and beef from cattle raised with growth hormones.”
	So we know there is huge pressure coming from the US to try and drive its standards forward at the expense of our higher standards. The same goes for protecting labour rights. We know there have been some weak outcomes already in trade agreements on workers’ rights abroad, so we have to be very careful.
	I am not going to repeat some of the examples already mentioned about the problems with the ISDS, but I want us to make sure that we are not complacent about the NHS. It worries me that Lord Livingston said in September that TTIP would not impact on the NHS so the Government will not push for its exclusion. We want to be absolutely certain about that. It is no good leaving it to some future secret court to decide. We need to be absolutely certain that the NHS is not in any way compromised by TTIP.
	The NHS European Office is part of the NHS Confederation. It has tried to be as balanced as it can be, and it says:
	“If the final agreement includes ISDS, we would wish to see very strong safeguards built in so that this mechanism cannot be used to frustrate the public policy intentions of elected member state governments.”
	It also states:
	“There is a need to be vigilant that the TTIP wording does not lower standards for the approval of pharmaceuticals”,
	in the same way as we have talked about for food standards.
	I urge the Minister to make certain that the UK is fully involved in those negotiations, and that we do not leave any i undotted or t uncrossed, and we make sure that we safeguard our NHS, our food standards and our environmental standards.

Jeremy Corbyn: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for securing this debate. It is long overdue, so
	well done to him for pressing for it. I also want to thank all the campaigning groups that have done so much work on this subject, including War on Want, the Global Justice Movement and the TUC. To the irritation of Conservative Members, I also want to thank 38 Degrees. There is no harm in members of the public e-mailing us. There is no harm in them getting together and asking MPs what they think, what they are doing and, above all, what they intend to do about a particular issue. That is what an interactive democracy is about, and modern technology gives us the opportunity to do these things. We should not be afraid of that; we should welcome it, even if it means replying to 300 or 400 e-mails at a time. That is not complicated, and I am sure that Members will eventually get used to the idea that there is going to be a lot more interaction in the future.
	The Government have sent—perhaps only to Conservative Members, I do not know—a very unhelpful document called “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: separating myth from fact”. It actually raises far more questions than it answers. It states rhetorically that it is being suggested that
	“TTIP is being agreed by a European institution which was not democratically elected”.
	Its response is:
	“The UK Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise the final agreement through debates in both Houses.”
	However, it goes on to say that the eventual deal will be agreed by the EU Council and the European Parliament—which is of course not the same as a national Parliament—and prays in aid the fact that
	“TTIP is also the subject of a House of Lords enquiry and an All-Party Parliamentary Group.”
	That is hardly a wholehearted endorsement of the democratic scrutiny of an arrangement that will be crucial to the work and ordinary lives of the people of this country.
	What is the objective of TTIP? It is to increase trade between Europe and north America, but that trade is not without a cost. It benefits the companies that undertake it and, yes, that could be beneficial if it means more jobs. But let us look at other trade agreements that claimed in advance that they would offer the same great advantages. An example is the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Severally, companies in those countries were all told that free trade would increase trade and opportunities and help to eliminate poverty. Who have been the losers? Those who have been de-industrialised in what is now, unfortunately, known as the rust belt in the USA; those who have seen their working conditions damaged in Canada; and those working for companies that have been set up in Mexico in a virtual tax haven zone on the border, who are paid disgracefully low wages and have appalling working conditions. Has NAFTA actually benefited any of the people it was claimed it would benefit, or has it in fact enriched those who were already doing very nicely, thank you very much? There are some serious questions to be answered there.
	There are seven areas of concern: food, climate change, small businesses, policy making, medicines, jobs, and public services. All of them would be affected by TTIP, and all are examples of areas in which private businesses would become empowered to prosecute Governments if they took decisions that were seen to be damaging to
	private interests. Do we think that this is a cri de coeur? Well, yes it is. It is a cri de coeur for democracy and for the right of people to elect a Government who can decide what goes on in their country. Let us examine the power of global corporations to attack the Government of South Africa for trying to buy generic anti-retroviral drugs, the Government of Ecuador for trying to protect the environment, or the Government of Argentina when the vulture funds bought up debts and are now penalising the people of that country. There are many other places where similar things are happening.
	I conclude by asking why there is secrecy surrounding the negotiations. Is it because there are ante-rooms on either side of the Atlantic stuffed full of highly effective corporate lobbyists doing their best to develop their own interests? Should we not instead be demanding a free trade agreement that narrows the gap between the rich and the poor, that protects the advance of public services such as the national health service, that fundamentally protects food production, and that ensures that the best standards become the universal standards, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom that results in the worst standards becoming the norm on both sides of the Atlantic? I hope that the House will reject TTIP.

John McDonnell: In my traditional role as the last Back-Bench speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), as others have done, for bringing the subject before us.
	These Back-Bench debates enable us to come to a view on a particular matter. It does not look as though there will be a vote today, apart from a shouted vote, in favour of my hon. Friend’s proposal, which aims for some element of democratic involvement in the process. For the record and for my constituents, if there were a vote today with regard to TTIP, I would vote against it. I think the majority of Members would vote against it because it is a pig in a poke. We do not know what it is.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). It is a good job that he is not here, as he would probably have a heart attack hearing that. He described TTIP as the establishment of the biggest institutional trade agreement since we joined the Common Market. That is true. If one considers the scale of this agreement, the population that it covers and the immensity of the world trade that it covers, it is bigger than the Common Market agreement. I cannot understand why we are not going through the same process. When we entered the Common Market, we went through a lengthy process. There were Green Papers and White Papers. There were consultation papers that went to every household, and there was eventually a referendum because we thought it had such significance for the sovereignty of the people of this country.
	The TTIP agreement passes over economic sovereignty on a scale that is equivalent to the establishment of the Common Market and the European Union, so I cannot understand why the Government are allowing that to happen without the full involvement of the people. Well, I think I can understand it, because most people have guessed it by now. This is about the corporate capture of policy making in this country and in parts of Europe. The only direct response MPs have had from
	the Government dates back to last September, when our constituents started contacting us. Eventually we got a letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills trying to assuage the anxieties expressed to us by our constituents. He went through a series of points.
	We need to start having a real debate with our constituents on the points that the Secretary of State made. He argued that there would be immense economic benefits. We heard that today—at least £10 billion of increased trade as a benefit to this country, and a significant number of jobs. The bizarre thing about it is that the work commissioned by the Government and the Centre for Economic Policy Research states that there is a risk of a million jobs being lost in this country overall.
	Each point the Secretary of State made is now contested. On small businesses, he argued in his letter that the trade agreement would be good for small business in this country. That is contested by the small business lobby in this country and right across Europe in every sector, particularly agriculture. On deregulation, the Secretary of State tried to allay fears about deregulation and said that there would be a levelling up rather than a levelling down. We heard today from a range of speakers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who went through a series of areas where there is a risk to the standards we have set in this country across the provision of services.
	With regard to the NHS being under attack and the assurances that we have been given, the person who said that TTIP would cover the NHS was not on the Opposition Benches. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He was asked whether the NHS would come within the ambit of the agreement and he confirmed that it would. We have had assurances since then, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) pointed out that since those assurances, if we look at the detail of the paperwork provided to us at last, it demonstrates that there is a series of caveats. That means that the NHS is still at risk.
	We come to the main issue at stake, the ISDS process. This is a transfer of power and decision making from democratically elected sovereign bodies to a group of corporate lawyers sitting in private and in secret. This country might not have lost cases, but in countries where this process has operated and where sovereign Governments have made decisions about the provision of public services, the countries have lost out, and it has cost them billions. In some instances, it has impoverished whole countries and whole sectors of a particular industry.
	TTIP presents a huge risk. I hope that if we pass the motion today unopposed, the Government will recognise that there needs to be a democratic process in place, not just for this House to scrutinise at each stage, but for the people of this country to be involved in the process. That is why I commend all those who pressurised us to have this debate today.

Ian Murray: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—indeed, I always follow him because he always seems to be called last in these debates. I do not know what he has done
	to upset someone in this House, but I am sure Santa delivered him some presents last month. He rightly pointed out the concerns about TTIP, and the Minister might wish to reflect that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) are agreeing on something, which shows there must be significant problems with the TTIP negotiations. I hope that the Minister realises that people have significant concerns across the House, and those have been expressed today.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for bringing this important debate to the House. Everything he said in his opening remarks has been reflected across all the contributions made this afternoon, and I am glad he stated at the end of his contribution that his aspiration was for a gold standard in trade deals to properly regulate trade from the EU and across the Atlantic. That is the way we want this to go, and the proper debate in this House is about ensuring that we can get the information, the scrutiny and the transparency we need to make those proper decisions on behalf of our constituents.
	TTIP does command considerable public interest, and I was slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) railed against 38 Degrees. I appreciate that there have been some problems on this issue but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly says, if constituents are e-mailing us with concerns and the information they are getting is inaccurate, that gives us an opportunity. I am glad they e-mailed me in their thousands, because that gives me an opportunity to put the record straight and give them further information.

Robin Walker: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I agree with him completely; I am always glad of the opportunity to put the correct facts to my constituents. The problem occurs where a group is misleading its own members, and I do think it is legitimate to raise concerns about that, especially where a Select Committee has been misled on a number of occasions.

Ian Murray: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain degree, but as for the way the campaign has been run by a number of organisations, let me say that they are rightly raising concerns. That is a symptom of the transparency and the debate in this House, and the fact that Members have not been given the information that their constituents are seeking. It is incredibly disappointing that this is the third debate we have had in this House but each has been brought by Back-Bench Opposition Members. We really need the Government to debate this properly and in a much more transparent fashion.
	The truth is that this place lacks proper ways to hold Ministers to account for what they do or decide in Europe on these trade deals. This is not just a criticism of this place and the Government, because the EU has also had to be persuaded to be more transparent. Although it has improved transparency to a certain extent on TTIP, the EU has an incredibly long way to go to give the public confidence that it is actually responding to their concerns.

Mark Tami: In what has been termed a “zombie Parliament”, the Government can hardly argue that we do not have time to spare to talk about very important issues such as TTIP.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we often talk about the zombie Parliament. We seem to have done very little in this House for the past year to 18 months, and we could have used some of that Government time to explore these issues. Perhaps if we had done so, we would not have had some of the misinformation that is perceived to be around, and we would have been able to address some of the concerns of the constituents who have e-mailed us in great numbers. That was rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who stressed that a lack of scrutiny and transparency had led to widespread suspicions about TTIP, and those have to be addressed.
	The economic impact of TTIP is debated, but it is important to bear it in mind that it will entirely depend on the final scope of the deal. To a certain extent I agree with the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith); we have to analyse this on the basis of benefits and we have to make sure that they are actually tangible benefits to our constituents. We know from recent history that balanced trade deals have a positive impact on economic activity and job creation, but people’s concerns mean that we are here to debate them and whether or not those positive impacts are actually real. Until we address those, we cannot get on to what the positive impacts might be—and there should be such impacts, because Europe and the US are our most important markets today.
	Indeed, the US is the UK’s biggest export market and TTIP could be transformative, but only if it is allowed to be and only if the deal is good for the UK. It does provide a real opportunity to regulate global trade, and it could benefit the UK. We should not shy away from that, because unregulated trade creates a race to the bottom. Many Members have stated in this debate that it is the race to the bottom that concerns them, and it is this process that is creating that race to the bottom, especially when it comes to standards and the way that the negotiations are perceived to be progressing.
	As many Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), Labour Governments, going back to the Attlee Administration, have engaged positively in attempting to regulate global trade, making trade agreements to ensure that everyone benefits, and that is an important point to make.
	Labour lends its support to the principle of TTIP and trade, but not unqualified support. We should not accept any deal that is not beneficial to the British people, and the benefits from any deal must filter down to consumers and small businesses. That point was made by the Federation of Small Businesses in the submission that it sent to all Members. We are not prepared to accept a deal that does not protect our public services and the NHS, and which does not satisfy the concerns that we have heard this afternoon on safety, food and environmental and labour standards. That was a point that was made quite forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). We must have a deal that has transparency and accountability at its heart.
	There is widespread interest in these negotiations. Organisations such as Global Justice Now deserve tremendous credit for ensuring that TTIP is in the consciousness of both the public and politicians. It is the topic on which I have received the most correspondence
	as a Member of Parliament, which shows the thirst that the public has for gaining more information on what this trade deal means for them personally.
	What is clear is that this cannot be a backroom trade deal done between Brussels and Washington. In a debate last February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said:
	“Like justice, good trade policy must not only be done but must now be seen to be done.” —[Official Report, 25 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 189.]
	Any legitimate agreement must command broad-based confidence that it will deliver on the benefits that it has claimed.
	Pressure from interested politicians and the public through some of the campaigns has led to advancements in the deal. Let me start by mentioning the NHS and public services. We have said all along that unless the NHS and public services are fully protected we cannot and will not support any TTIP deal. It was Labour and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne who were the first to insist on full protection for the NHS. With Labour colleagues in the UK and European Parliaments, we have been campaigning hard for this guarantee, and it is that campaigning that has secured the commitment from the EU chief negotiator that the NHS can and will be fully protected. He said that
	“full policy space has been reserved for publicly funded health services”
	and, further, that any provision will have
	“no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”
	However, Labour will not support a deal unless that commitment is totally honoured. It will take a strong UK Government in the EU to ensure that that is delivered, but Government Ministers have done nothing to secure that commitment at EU level. What is clear is that the biggest threat to the NHS and public services in the UK—this has been said by many of my hon. Friends—is not this or any trade agreement, but the re-election of a Conservative Government in May. Of course EU negotiators need the agreement of member state Governments to be able to take these things forward. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not support any TTIP treaty that includes the NHS and public services? He can give that commitment at the Dispatch Box this afternoon and take the matter off the table.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, if the Government are so convinced that the NHS and other public services are not to be included in the deal, why do they not take a belt and braces approach and put it into the negative list to give everyone the comfort that they seek? This is important not just for the NHS and public services but because Labour will repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 in May 2015 without impediment. The failure to put public services, including the NHS, on the negative list might, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, undermine the assurances we have been given. So it would be very good to get the Minister’s response to that.
	The second area that many Members have focused on is ISDS. There is a case for saying that private arbitration mechanisms are best used among partners with uneven levels of protection and where a due process of law
	cannot be guaranteed, but that is not the case in either the US or the EU, and many Members have said that in those particular advanced jurisdictions, contract law should suffice. There are huge concerns that ISDS would prevent Governments from legislating for the benefit of the country. TTIP must not challenge the ability of this House, and of elected Members, to adopt and implement laws and regulations as we see fit and as we are elected to do.

Zac Goldsmith: If the Labour party were given an opportunity and were in charge of these negotiations at any point in the near future, would they insist on the removal of ISDS from TTIP? Is that a red line for them?

Ian Murray: We have said clearly that ISDS in its current form is not desirable in this trade deal, and the Government have said they do not think that ISDS will ever be used in the context of an EU-US trade deal, so my question would be, if it will not be used, why have it in that deal? We very much welcome the European Commission’s consultation. We very much welcome yesterday’s announcement that ISDS has been suspended, but we are unconvinced at this stage that ISDS in its current form is either necessary or desirable in the agreement, and we would have to see what its pausing would do.
	On the basis of that intervention, my question to the Minister would be: how will he respond to the pausing and suspension of the ISDS negotiations in the trade deal yesterday, and what will the UK Government be doing to express the serious concerns on those issues expressed in the House today?
	I shall mention some of the views expressed by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) emphasised that we want free trade but that it is important to engage to ensure that it is fair and regulated. He was right to talk about the power of trade agreements to drive up standards, and to say that that should be the goal, and that we should not support the dilution of standards. He gave personal examples of where that has happened. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who highlighted the potential benefits for the Scottish agricultural industry, but spoke about what the impact would be, in that particular economy, on food standards.
	I was slightly confused by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who seemed to say that the NHS was completely and utterly secure, but then argued that the tobacco industry should be removed from the deal in case it could use ISDS provisions to sue the UK Government for acting on public health grounds. That was a slightly contradictory response. That highlights the fact that ISDS is a real problem as regards what TTIP is intended to deliver.
	As time is running out, I shall pose some questions to the Minister, who may be able to answer them in his reply. What plans do the Government have to ensure that this House is kept fully informed as to the content of those negotiations and the Government’s response to them? Will he keep the public informed and engaged, because it is clear from this afternoon’s debate that the public are not engaged in this process directly by the Government but by other organisations? Will he outline
	how the business community will stay engaged in this debate and how he will respond to what looks as though it will be the unanimous passing of the motion moved by my hon. Friend from Cardiff West?

Geraint Davies: Swansea West.

Ian Murray: I am sorry. That is a slip that should never be made in this House, but never mind. Cardiff West is probably the best place to be. I have often been called the Member for Glasgow South, and been very happy to be so.
	We need more engagement on TTIP in this House and at EU level, and I hope the Government will respond positively to this debate so that everyone can benefit from a robust and effective treaty, and so that the concerns that were exposed this afternoon can be dealt with properly.

Matthew Hancock: It is a pleasure to respond to this crucial debate on TTIP. We must set the debate in the context of Britain’s great trading history, from the wool trade of the middle ages and the spice routes of the 17th century to the Pax Britannica in Victorian times, which saw the Navy deployed to keep the lanes of trade open around the world. As a nation, we are deeply committed to free and fair exchange, and with remarkably few exceptions that was the consensus in today’s debate. With the abolition of the corn laws by a Conservative Prime Minister, we were the first country in the world to open ourselves up to foreign competition. Peel knew that one tackles the cost of living not by fixing markets but by setting them free, and that is a lesson that holds true today.

Mark Reckless: Is—[Interruption.] Is TTIP really about setting markets free, or is it about having a single regulatory system across the Atlantic whereby people will be forbidden from selling things unless they comply with those regulations?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the Minister replies, if the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the debate, and I judge by the mood of the House that that might well be the case, he should think carefully before intervening on the Minister and taking up time.

Matthew Hancock: TTIP is about fair and free trade and since 1970 the percentage of people worldwide who live on less than $1 a day has fallen by 80% when adjusted for inflation, not because of public works or central planning but because of the dawn of market liberalism in countries that once embraced state control. That point was made by Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), whom I congratulate on obtaining the debate, set out how TTIP can demonstrate trade liberalisation and, alongside the trans-Pacific trade partnership, or TPP, which is proposed between the US and countries around the Pacific, and the EU-Canada deal, can form the basis of a global free trade area with global standards to which others could aspire. I very much agree with him on that point.

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a trade relationship with Africa, particularly north Africa, given that a lot of the pressure for migration comes from inequality? We should be sharing the fruits of global trade rather than hoarding it for the rich nations.

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, not just about Africa but about progress on the India trade deal. This raising from grinding poverty of billions of people has come about because they have been able to access the world market economy. That is a vital way of fighting poverty around the world.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain why the Government’s leaflet on “TTIP myths” claims that a family of four would benefit by £400 a year yet makes no mention of the peer-reviewed paper from Tufts university that predicts that over 10 years the average working Briton will be more than £3,000 worse off as a result of the lower wages that TTIP will fuel? Why is that not included in his myths?

Matthew Hancock: The conclusion that trade raises wages and prosperity is borne out not only in the theory but in the evidence. The evidence of my lifetime has been that enhancing trade increases prosperity. That has happened in the decades for which I have been on this earth in a greater way than in any other time in history. About £1.5 billion in goods and services is traded between the US and Europe every day and 13 million jobs are linked to that. This ambitious agreement has the target, which it could meet, of adding as much as £10 billion to the UK. What does that figure mean? It is almost meaningless to all but the very largest companies.
	This is what it means. Let us picture a small business owner who, five years ago, might nearly have gone under through no fault of his own thanks, in part, to the economic circumstances. Like so many smaller business owners, he did not give up and recently things have got better. The recovery might have delivered for him here, but he might want to expand and take on more staff and he might find people in America who want to be customers. He wants to sell his product to more people, but if margins are tight the prohibitive extra cost of the trade barriers means that that simply is not an option. Now, let us picture a post-TTIP world in which those costs do not exist. We have not only increased the UK’s GDP but managed to ensure that someone can trade, creating an apprenticeship or a job to fulfil those orders, and in America somebody can get a product that they could not get before. That reciprocity—that “something for something”—explains why free and fair exchange makes us all better off.
	So how do we make that a reality? First, we must significantly reduce cost differences in regulations by promoting greater compatibility while maintaining high standards of health and safety and environmental protection, especially for cars, pharmaceuticals, food—which was mentioned by Members in all parts of the House—and financial services. Secondly, while tariffs are low on many goods, we must tackle the high remaining tariffs on, for instance, food, clothing and other goods that impede exports and hurt consumers. Thirdly, we must push for better market access for service companies, which make up almost three quarters of the UK economy. Where possible, we will seek a guarantee that our service
	companies are treated in exactly the same way as US providers and do not face any additional regulatory requirements beyond those that US businesses face. Fourthly, we must have more open and transparent public procurement opportunities. Why, for instance, should US rules require that only US steel is used in certain projects? Fifthly, we will target trade facilitation, removing some of the red tape and bureaucracy at borders, and cut unnecessary costs while speeding up the movement of goods.
	This is a historic deal. I want to tackle some of the challenges and objections head on. Several Members raised concerns about regulation. In fact, TTIP provides an opportunity to take stock of existing rules on both sides of the Atlantic and to remove unnecessary duplication while ultimately making sure that we support a well-regulated market. This will be done without lowering environmental, labour or consumer safety standards. Nor will the inclusion of the ISDS provisions affect the ability of Governments to regulate. As many Members mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) brought it up first—we already have 90 such agreements in place and there has never been a successful claim brought against the UK.
	Others expressed concern about the impact on jobs, yet time and experience show that trade creates jobs and supports higher wages. This is backed up by independent assessment. The overall impact on labour markets will be positive in the EU and the US, as real wages, whether of unskilled or skilled workers, will be able to increase.

Mark Durkan: The Minister relies on history in saying that the UK has never lost an ISDS case. With regard to the way in which the ISDS regime will operate under this treaty, whether or not one can be confident that the UK will not lose a case, if a case is lost by another member state, or a firm in another member state, what would be the implications for the UK?

Matthew Hancock: If a case is lost in another member state on its domestic regulation, I would not expect that to have any implications for the UK.
	As on regulation, so on the NHS, which has been brought up many times. We are quite clear that there is no threat to the NHS from TTIP. Public services and publicly funded health services are not included in any of the EU trade commitments. I will go further and read what the former Trade Commissioner said to the BBC:
	“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, gave a very clear enunciation of the exemption of the NHS set out by not only the EU but the US side in these negotiations. I would say this to anybody who continues to campaign against the inclusion of the NHS in TTIP: you have already achieved your aim, and continuing to campaign is continuing actively to mislead, because public services and publicly funded health services are not included in this negotiation.

Bob Stewart: May I clarify one thing? It is probably not as important as the whole thrust of this debate, but when I was badly hurt in the Army and the NHS took responsibility for helping me
	get better, we used an American system to put me back on my feet. I hope, and assume, that use of American techniques and systems by the NHS is still allowed.

Matthew Hancock: Of course that will be allowed, but the point is that we would still have control over our public health policy. I can give that reassurance, which was sought by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Labour Front Bench, so I hope he will now remove that objection. I do not want to conclude that some Opposition Members do not want to be reassured, but increasingly that is the only view I can reasonably come to.

Ian Murray: That was not the question I posed to the Minister. The question I asked was: if there is any threat whatsoever to the NHS and the UK’s wider public services, will the Minister and the Government sign a TTIP trade deal?

Matthew Hancock: The Health Secretary has already made it clear that if a trade deal threatened the NHS, he would not support it. However, as the former Trade Commissioner has said:
	“Public services are always exempted”.
	I am glad that we can finally put that issue to bed. I doubt that Labour Front Benchers will raise it again, because they now know that they would be misleading the nation if they did so.

Geraint Davies: Would the Minister sign a deal without ISDS? Does he think that ISDS is a necessary part of TTIP?

Matthew Hancock: The reason for the inclusion of ISDS is to make sure that people who want to make investments have the confidence do so because they know that recourse is available.
	In the couple of minutes remaining, I want to address the issue of scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has said, there has been huge scrutiny and engagement, including four debates in both Houses; four Select Committee inquiries; regular updates to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and the chair of the all-party group on TTIP, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey); regular stakeholder meetings; endless piles of letters that I and the Minister for Trade and Investment have signed; constant consultation with the European Parliament; four online public consultations by the Commission; and we even have a TTIP roadshow.
	Let no one be in any doubt: enormous consultation is taking place both inside and outside this House. The commissioners have come to this Palace. Last week, 150 pages of text, eight proposals for legal text and 15 position papers were published. Following the passage of this motion, we will ensure that I and other Ministers continue to engage with this House.
	Let us once more assume our historic role as the pioneers of free trade, not only for the sake of the British people, but for the sake of all people around the world for whom liberty and prosperity go hand in hand.

Geraint Davies: I briefly thank Members for the massive attendance at this very important debate. We have heard a series of excellent speeches focusing on the benefits of trade, particularly if it is done on the right terms. On ISDS, however, no argument has been made as to why it is a good idea, other than that it has not been used against us, which sounds like the argument that there should be no gun control because we have not been shot.
	This has been an informative debate and we should now unite as one to demand more scrutiny and to determine a future without multinationals breathing down our necks while we make democratic decisions on behalf of our constituents. Yes, we should trade, but we should not trade our democracy, public services or the rights that we have enjoyed and should bequeath to our sons and daughters across Europe. We want more trade, which is good for everyone as long as it is done on the right terms. We are elected here by our constituents to ensure that fair trade is delivered in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and any associated investor-state dispute settlement provisions should be subject to scrutiny in the European Parliament and the UK Parliament.

PETITION
	 — 
	Sale of Land at Parklands School in Swansea

Geraint Davies: I rise to present a petition opposing the sale of land at Parklands school in Sketty, Swansea, following a similar petition of 254 local petitioners.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the City and County of Swansea Council to reconsider plans to sell the land at Parklands School in Sketty.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that there are plans to sell land at Parklands School in Sketty, Swansea; further that Parklands School is oversubscribed and faces increasing demand; further that it is the only school land sale that proposes to dissect a school site; further that the proposal under-estimates the school roll as consisting of 420 pupil places when it is currently 480 plus nursery places; further that the planned sale would disproportionately affect pupils with disabilities; further that the proposal has not yet been consulted upon; and further that a local petition on this matter has been signed by 2054 residents of the Swansea West constituency.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the City and County of Swansea Council to reconsider plans to sell the land at Parklands School in Sketty.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001422]

PANCREATIC CANCER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Mark Lancaster.)

Nicholas Dakin: There have been several parliamentary debates on pancreatic cancer over the past year, not least the one in Westminster Hall in September in response to the e-petition launched by my constituent, Maggie Watts, which gained more than 100,000 signatures. The petition called for more to be done to improve public awareness and early diagnosis of, and increased research into, pancreatic cancer. It was a positive, constructive debate, with many Members from across the House showing their passion and commitment to upping our game on tackling pancreatic cancer.
	The Minister and hon. Members in the Chamber are well aware of the issues, but it is important to put on the record again the seriousness of this disease. Pancreatic cancer is the fifth largest cause of cancer deaths in the UK today, and is set to overtake breast cancer as the fourth biggest cancer killer by 2030. Some 8,800 people are diagnosed with the disease each year, and 8,700 people die from it each year. Five-year survival rates are less than 4%—the worst rate for any of the 21 most common cancers—and have barely changed during the past 40 years. While mortality rates have fallen for most forms of cancer, sadly, those for pancreatic cancer are rising. That is largely due to late diagnosis, with half of all diagnoses made via emergency admissions, which means that less than 20% of patients are diagnosed at a stage when curative surgery remains an option.
	Thankfully, these days a majority of cancer patients survive for 10 years. Sadly, that is not the case for pancreatic cancer patients, of whom fewer than 1% survive 10 years. That is why future medical support for pancreatic cancer—greater awareness, early diagnosis, new treatments and faster access to treatments—is so important.
	The debate this week is fortuitous as it follows Monday’s announcement that the cancer drugs fund has removed 25 drugs from its approved list. As the Minister will know, there was real anxiety about the pancreatic cancer drug Abraxane being removed. That drug has been shown to extend patients’ lives by an average of about two months, and in some cases by significantly more. It is routinely used around the world as a basic standard of care for pancreatic cancer patients. If it is removed from the CDF, there is a real danger that English patients will be hugely disadvantaged. It was positive news that Abraxane has not been removed from the CDF list.
	However, from reading the small print of the CDF decision, it appears that the drug is still under threat of removal. The CDF panel has merely granted a stay of execution while more evidence on Abraxane is gathered. Do not get me wrong: the extra time is welcome—I hope, once more evidence has been provided, that the CDF panel will agree to keep Abraxane for the longer term—but at the moment we are in a state of limbo.
	Will the Minister clarify just how much time will be allowed for the drug manufacturer to provide additional evidence to the CDF panel? What specifically needs to be provided for a positive decision? Importantly, will clinicians dealing with pancreatic cancer day to day and
	patient organisations be allowed to feed into the process and submit their observable evidence to the CDF? I hope that the Minister will agree that an appropriate period should be allowed for sufficient evidence to be collated, presented and analysed. Ideally, gathering evidence over a period from clinicians, using the drug at the coal face, would be the best way to trial commissioning through evaluation. Does the Minister support that approach?
	The truth is that the CDF’s decision not immediately to delist Abraxane on Monday is more important than ever because over the Christmas break NICE announced that it would not fund Abraxane routinely on the NHS. Consequently, if Abraxane were no longer on the CDF list, patients in England would not be able to access the drug for free. Its place on the CDF list is now, literally, the last lifeline for some patients.
	NICE rejected the drug on cost grounds, yet it costs only £8,000 per patient—much less than some other specialist drugs, which run to tens of thousands of pounds. The issue is the way that NICE calculates cost benefit through its system of quality adjusted life years, which in reality works against cancer drugs, especially for those cancers with poor prognoses such as pancreatic cancer. In this instance I understand that the drug was not even assessed or considered under NICE’s less prescriptive end-of-life criteria. That seems rather strange when the disease we are talking about has the worst survival rate of any common cancer, with the average survival time for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients just two to six months.
	Questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the NICE drug appraisal system, with 60% of cancer drugs rejected by NICE in 2012—an increase on figures for 2010. Despite the excellent work that NICE and the CDF have done, there is a strong argument for reform, and I know that a number of models have been considered in the last few years. I urge the Minister to bring together NICE, the CDF, the NHS, charities, the industry, and others to thrash out as soon as possible a new, workable drug appraisal model that everybody has confidence in.
	Important as they are in extending life, chemotherapy drugs are not the be-all and end-all. In fact, for pancreatic cancer survival rates to increase substantially we need earlier diagnosis of the disease, and new types of treatment made available to patients as a matter of priority. Will the Minister prioritise a public awareness campaign? Campaigners such as my constituent, Maggie Watts, and fantastic pancreatic cancer charities such as Pancreatic Cancer Action and Pancreatic Cancer UK would, I am sure, be keen to work with the Department, and others, to promote a public awareness campaign that leads to earlier diagnosis.
	Some of the trial measures for early diagnosis announced by NHS England last weekend, including direct GP access to CT scans, direct patient referral to specialists, and multi-disciplinary diagnostic centres, are welcome. Measures that are designed to speed referral pathways and stop patients being “ping-ponged” backwards and forwards between GPs and different specialists were raised in the Westminster Hall e-petition debate.
	Self-referral may end the tragic cases of patients who get so fed up with being ignored by their GP or hospital that they end up paying for a private scan to confirm one way or another whether they have cancer, and I am
	optimistic that progress can be made. Perhaps the Minister can provide us with more details about the trials, which I know are being implemented jointly with Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support. How many trial areas will be selected? Where will they be? How can patients take part? Perhaps importantly for this debate, will access to tests for pancreatic cancer, such as CT scans, be included in the pilots?
	One issue raised in the September debate was the need to prioritise promising new technologies for treating cancers of unmet need—such as pancreatic cancer—as soon as possible. It was welcome when the Minister said in response to that debate that a new NHS England and Cancer Research UK trial into stereotactic ablative radiotherapy—treatments such as CyberKnife—would include pancreatic cancer. That, and other treatments such as NanoKnife, can precisely target tumours, potentially making them very important in the fight against pancreatic cancer where the location of the tumour sometimes makes curative surgery impossible—for instance, when the tumour has grown very close to an artery. Those new technologies could therefore help to reduce the size of the tumour on so-called borderline resectable patients, subsequently making them eligible for full curative surgery. The confirmation over the weekend that NHS England will be carrying out the SABR trial is most welcome. Will the Minister confirm that the trial will include pancreatic cancer? Will she confirm how many patients will be recruited and which centres will carry out the trial? When will it start recruiting?
	One of the ways we might gain more rapid data on the efficacy of technologies such as CyberKnife and NanoKnife and benefit patients at the same time is through the commissioning through evaluation programme. The Minister will be aware that the all-party group on pancreatic cancer produced a report in October that made a number of recommendations about how to boost research into pancreatic cancer. I am grateful to the Minister for copying me in to her response to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who is in his place. He has done an outstanding job of chairing the all-party group and raising issues both in this House and outside relating to this difficult matter. One recommendation suggested including both NanoKnife and CyberKnife in the NHS England commissioning through evaluation programme as a matter of priority. Will the Minister update us on the current funding status for commissioning through evaluation? What consideration will be given to the all-party group’s recommendation to include those technologies in the scheme as a priority?
	On a similar subject, and referring to another recommendation from the recent all-party group’s research report, the Minister will know that Genomics England is funding a huge project to sequence the genomes of people with rare diseases and cancer. As things stand, I believe only six types of cancer are included in that project and that pancreatic cancer is not one of them. I therefore ask the Minister to include pancreatic cancer as a priority area as part of that project. Failing that, will she confirm that, under their service specifications with Genomics England, individual centres have the flexibility to add to the types of disease from which they collect and sequence samples? If individual centres were
	agreeable, they could themselves decide to add pancreatic cancer to their work areas above and beyond the six cancer types agreed nationally.
	I note that a new independent cancer taskforce has been established to produce a new national cancer strategy for the next five years. That is truly welcome news. I understand it will look at areas such as early diagnosis, access to treatment, improvements to care, and, vitally, research and innovation. As part of that development, will the Minister consider making sure that the new strategy has a particular focus on prioritising cancers of unmet need? If we are to make real inroads into improving overall cancer survival rates, we must prioritise building research and innovation to better tackle the most difficult-to-treat cancers—those with the lowest survival rates such as lung cancer, brain tumours, oesophageal cancer and, of course, pancreatic cancer.
	In conclusion, hopefully in the coming months we will receive confirmation that Abraxane stays on the cancer drugs fund list for the longer term. This is a short-term, but important, step. I hope we will see new treatments, such as CyberKnife and NanoKnife, made quickly available to pancreatic cancer patients, perhaps through the commissioning through evaluation process. I hope clinical trials and research projects, such as the Genomics England project, will prioritise pancreatic cancer for research, and that a new national cancer strategy might prioritise research and innovation into tackling the cancers with the worst survival outcomes. Lastly, I hope the Government will work with all interested parties to introduce a public awareness campaign to maximise early presentation, followed by early diagnosis, leading to earlier action and transforming outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate and to my friend the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the deputy chair of the all-party group, for his constant work. He introduced the Westminster Hall debate and it seems that we merry three—the Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe and myself—meet frequently in these debates. But we make no excuses for that.
	With the permission of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, I will let the Minister into a secret; we deliberately went for this debate not knowing the outcome of the cancer drugs fund decision. We must thank everyone involved in the decision to keep Abraxane. Those include the people who signed the petition, and my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who accompanied me to No. 10 to hand in the petition. I thank also Pancreatic Cancer UK, Pancreatic Cancer Action—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe—Pancreatic Research UK and Maggie Blanks. I thank everybody who put so much effort into this. But as the hon. Gentleman said, it is temporary and we expect something more.
	Reference has been made to the period of two months but in terms of the average, that could double the survival rates of most people with pancreatic cancer.
	I will not repeat the figures but, on average, 24 people today will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Of those 24, 23 will die within a year. That is the situation.
	I also thank the Minister and, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe mentioned—he seemed to mention everything—there is the five-year action plan. We talked about unmet need and the Americans have talked about recalcitrant cancer strategy, but I add my support to the hon. Gentleman that that becomes part of the responsibilities of the taskforce.
	I welcome the announcement last month by NHS England that one-year survival rates from cancer would become a measurement for the new clinical commissioning groups from 2015. I believe that that will make a huge difference; not just with pancreatic cancer but with every cancer. Given that that is the only disease that will be measured in those terms, I thank the Minister and her colleagues for getting that through. I also commend the work of the all-party group on cancer led by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), which has worked constantly on early diagnosis. That will be a fundamental key in the revolution that is happening in cancer, and we would like to see it happen for pancreatic cancer.
	I also thank the Minister for her detailed reply to the all-party group’s report on pancreatic research, “A Roadmap to Change.” We are grateful for that and the group will try to come back on it. But I have one last request; when I met the Minister, we were promised that the chief medical officer would at some point come to the all-party group and discuss the findings. I would be grateful if she used her good offices to ensure that that happens.

Jane Ellison: I return to the Dispatch Box very rapidly after the debate earlier this afternoon, and on an important topic; one of the most important in my portfolio. I congratulate once again the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate. As ever, he is ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). They and their colleagues in the all-party group have achieved much in this Parliament in highlighting the needs associated with this dreadful disease and in raising awareness of it.
	I have said many times before at the Dispatch Box that improving cancer outcomes is a major priority for the Government and as the annual report on our cancer outcomes strategy in December showed, we are on track to save an extra 12,000 lives by 2015. Sadly too few of them are those suffering from pancreatic cancer, so while we want to see the best possible results for all cancer patients, I appreciate—as we have discussed before—that outcomes are particularly poor for patients with pancreatic cancer. We need to do a lot better.
	I was delighted that on Sunday 11 January NHS England announced a new independent cancer task force to develop a five-year action plan for cancer services that will build on the existing work to improve survival rates and save thousands more lives. The taskforce has been set up to produce a new cross-system, national cancer strategy to take us through the next five years to 2020, building on NHS England’s vision for improving outcomes as set out in the NHS five-year forward view.
	The taskforce will be set up in partnership with the cancer charities and the health system leaders, and chaired by Dr Harpal Kumar, the chief executive of Cancer Research UK. The all-party group might like to consider how it, too, can participate in, and contribute to, the taskforce.
	The new strategy will set a clear direction covering the following areas: prevention; early and faster diagnosis; better treatment and care for all; recovery, re-ablement and living with and beyond cancer; research and innovation; end-of-life care; data and metrics; and work force. The taskforce will produce a statement of intent by March this year, with the new strategy published in the summer.
	Tackling late diagnosis is, as we have often said, a very important element in achieving our ambition to improve all cancer outcomes. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe said, however, there is currently no easy way of detecting pancreatic cancer and it can be particularly difficult for GPs to detect and diagnose, especially in its early stages. Symptoms can be complicated by the fact that they are shared with a wide range of benign conditions.
	My ears pricked up when, as part of the taskforce announcement last weekend, NHS England launched a major early diagnosis programme, working with Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support, to test new approaches to identifying cancer more quickly. These include offering patients the option to self-refer for diagnostic tests, as the hon. Gentleman said; lowering the threshold for GP referrals; creating a diagnostic pathway for vague symptoms like tiredness, which is particularly important for hard-to-spot cancers such as pancreatic cancer; and setting up multidisciplinary diagnostic centres so patients can have several tests done on the same day at the same place—not the ping-ponging around, which can be so debilitating for someone already feeling very poorly. NHS England’s aim is to evaluate these innovative initiatives across more than 60 centres around England, collecting evidence on approaches with a view to implementation from 2016-17.
	Turning to the awareness campaign, we have debated the possibility of pancreatic cancer being part of the “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign set before. Since 2010-11, the Department has undertaken a series of local, regional and national campaigns. Public Health England now leads on this work with the Department, NHS England, charities and relevant stakeholder groups.
	It has always been difficult to give a positive response with regard to pancreatic cancer to date, because the focus has so far been on those cancers with the largest number of avoidable deaths. As colleagues know, these campaigns are under constant review, and we work with the relevant experts to see what more can be done. All the time, there are small trials going on to see where we can tackle other cancers. Pancreatic is obviously one that experts will keep under review.
	The group that makes decisions about the campaigns, the public awareness and primary care steering group, chaired by our national cancer director, Sean Duffy, has considered pancreatic cancer for a possible campaign. To date, it has been unable to recommend it owing to the problems we mentioned about symptoms, but members would be very happy to look at it again if there were new evidence. I sense from all the things going on—particularly some recent announcements—that that point might not be too far in the future.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for everything she has said to date. On the issue of a public awareness campaign on pancreatic cancer, is there a way in which those with pancreatic cancers could engage with that body to see if there is a way forward?

Jane Ellison: If I recall my diary correctly, I have a meeting with Sean Duffy coming up, and I would be happy to raise that issue with him, along with any other points arising from this debate. It will certainly be on my agenda for discussions with him. I have touched on the matter briefly with him before, but I will pick it up again.
	The problems with late diagnosis have been explored before, and it is critical that we get people the most appropriate treatment early. We have discussed radiotherapy before. It can be a very helpful treatment for some patients. As part of its recent announcement, NHS England committed a further £15 million over three years to evaluate and treat patients with a modern, more precise type of radiotherapy— stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or SABR, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That evaluation programme will mean a significant increase in the number of cancer patients eligible to access this treatment by around 750 a year, and the programme will widen the number of cancers being treated by SABR, including cancer that has spread to another part of the body.
	The new investment is in addition to NHS England’s pledge to provide up to £6 million over the next five years to cover NHS treatment costs of SABR clinical trials, most of which are being led by Cancer Research UK and one of which—as the hon. Gentleman knows from our debate last September—relates to pancreatic cancer. As for the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion regarding commissioning through evaluation, I shall raise it with NHS England. I am afraid that we do not yet know which centres or how many patients will take part in the trials to assess the effectiveness of SABR in comparison with conventional radiotherapy or surgery, but I understand that we are likely to have that information in the coming weeks. I will certainly make the decision-makers involved aware of the debate, and of the interest in the outcome of their deliberations.
	NHS England’s chemotherapy clinical reference group has set out service specifications defining what NHS England expects to be in place to enable providers to offer evidence-based, safe and effective chemotherapy services. NICE has issued technology appraisal guidance which recommends Gemzar as an option for treating patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who meet certain clinical criteria. NICE is also appraising a number of new drugs for pancreatic cancer. NHS commissioners are legally required to fund treatments recommended by NICE in its technology appraisal guidance.
	Understandably, the cancer drugs fund has been mentioned this evening. The Government’s reasons for establishing the fund are well documented. At the end of August 2014 it received an additional £160 million, and I welcome the announcement on 12 January by NHS England, which is now responsible for the fund’s operational management, that it too would provide extra money. The CDF panel has decided that further
	consideration of Abraxane for the treatment of pancreatic cancer is needed, and it will remain on the national CDF list until that has been concluded. I am not yet sure about the timings, but I will undertake to update the all-party group, including the hon. Members for Scunthorpe and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, in due course.
	Let me now say something about NICE appraisals. Representatives of the Department, NICE, 10 key cancer charities and the pharmaceutical industry met in December to discuss the future of cancer drugs commissioning. They committed themselves to establishing a working group to develop a robust process to support the sustainable, long-term commissioning of cancer drugs. The group will meet for the first time, opportunely, on Monday 19 January.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe found the letter about research useful. He and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, had a very good meeting with the chief medical officer, and we have followed that up with a response to the all-party group’s excellent report, which was published last October. At our meeting, the chief medical officer said that she would be happy to attend a meeting of the all-party group. I will remind her of that, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend get in touch with her. We would respond positively to that.
	The Government are investing a record £800 million over the five years to 2017 in a series of biomedical research centres and units, including £6.5 million of funding for the Liverpool pancreas biomedical research unit. The unit is working in partnership with industry and leading research institutions to develop new treatments and diagnostic strategies for pancreatic cancer. The National Cancer Research Institute brings together clinicians, scientists, statisticians and lay representatives. Its upper gastro-intestinal cancer clinical studies group has a pancreas sub-group, which plays a vital role in the development of trials.
	Late in 2012, the Prime Minister launched the 100,000 genomes project, which will sequence 100,000 whole genomes from NHS patients by 2017. It focuses on patients with rare diseases and their families, as well as on patients with some types of cancer. We believe that the six cancers that will be covered will give us knowledge and understanding that can be applied to all cancers. Although pancreatic cancer is not one of the six, we expect the project to make a useful contribution in that regard.
	I thank both Members who have spoken this evening, I thank the all-party group, and I thank all those who campaign tirelessly for progress on pancreatic cancer. We know that achieving improved outcomes for people with the disease is a huge challenge, but I believe that the change that we all desperately want to see will come. I welcome the new cancer taskforce, which will be leading the way, and I undertake to write to its independent chairman, drawing his attention to this evening’s important debate and the work of the all-party group.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.